On Monday October 3 there was a planning meeting at Rye Town Council. Initially there was nothing dramatic. One particular planning application was rejected because of over development, an erection of a two storey one bed dwelling in The Drive, Shipyard Lane. It also was deemed to take away amenities from the neighbour. There was a discussion around building work, additional or new, where flat roofs are being suggested which was seen as taking away from Rye’s townscape.
The main discussion was about Lion Street, how best to prevent cars and vans parking on the pavement or endangering people walking up and down. Councillor Boyd who is taking the lead in researching a solution, reported that he feels CCTV was a possible way forward, or making Lion Street pedestrian.
Councillor Rogers felt that RTC should not look at a solution that would cost a lot of money for the few people who might benefit, e.g. no cars at all would mean re-direction of the whole town. Eventually a consensus was reached that all were happy for Councillor Boyd to continue the research of CCTV at both ends of the street. It was felt that seeing a camera might change people’s behaviour regarding their car parking and would be the most reasonable concerning finance.
A question, that could, and perhaps should have been asked at that point, might have been: “OK, we look at the CCTV and catch several drivers. But what happens then? The police will not act on a parking issue” although it is to be hoped that they would act if someone who damages property is captured on film.
Councillor Boyd is forming a small group to research the finances. He will meet with Headcorn councillors, a town which has already used cameras, and will also meet with Sussex police to discuss the way forward.
Photo: Rye News Library
Image Credits: Rye New library .
How then do the shops load and unload ? or customers pick up goods which sometimes takes time. Get a grip and accept that business’s have to operate or do the people who live in the Upper part of the town want to kill off Rye’s fading business altogether. Probably so.
One good reason to install cameras is the “secret gutter” issue. These gutters are set into pavements all over Rye and their upkeep and repair is the legal responsibility of the householders whose downpipes drain into them. Rye Conservation Society has conducted a survey of these confirming that many are in a poor state – but much of the damage to them is caused by vehicles parking on the pavements. It seems unreasonable for householders to pick up the bill for damage which is neither their fault nor outside their control. CCTV would enable them to identify who was responsible. Given that the cost of replacement of a secret gutter can be hundreds of pounds – but still not be enough to exceed the household insurance excess – the opportunity to recoup the expense would be an advantage.
It should also be remembered that pavement parking in a restricted area is illegal, whether or not there is enforcement. Citadel residents do not object to necessary parking but, certainly in the case of builders’ vehicles, the growth of gratuitous, lazy parking is to be deplored, and by forcing pedestrians into the road the risk of accidents and falls is greatly increased.
As a builder frequently working in the citadel area including lion street I plead guilty to occasionally parking for a short period on the pavement (lion street and west street). This is not gratuitous(?) or lazy but is necessary on occasion for several reasons. Examples: Unloading, clearing rubbish or surplus materials, I have even been known to park a van to deliberately protect a worker using a ladder on the frontage of a building from passing traffic. Legally it is acceptable to park on a double yellow line to load or unload for a maximum of ten minutes but if we weren’t to park on the pavement this would block traffic for that ten minutes – imagine the backlash then ! At the risk of upsetting some of my valued customers I should like to point out that one of the contributing factors is the lack of legal short term parking spaces for us to use – caused in part by residents and shopkeepers abusing the unenforced parking restrictions themselves. You cannot expect to fix the problem if you are not prepared to be part of the solution. Be warned that if enforcement comes back to Rye it will not be the builders and delivery drivers who suffer in the long term.
Here is an observation.
Neither Rother DC, East Sussex or Rye Town Council can get there act together with regard to this problem. Their incompetence and buck passing is of biblical proportions.
But woe betide you if you overstay your parking a few minutes in a Rother Council car park. Sports Centre, Gibbets Marsh or Bedford Place etc. It,ll cost you a minimum £60 (and there is no escape as appeals are run by RDC, end of) even if it is 9 o,clock on a Sunday morning.
So why bother, just bung your car on double lines in the town, nothing will happen and it is free parking
Sure the car parks have to be paid for and some discipline exerted but it is parking anarchy in Rye.
[Note:This comment has been edited]
I can remember when there where parking bays at the top of Lion Street on the left hand side, it went from the just below the entrance to the cinema to what was then the rear entrance to the George hotel. The double yellows went in circa late 80’s early 90’s.
Yes! I`m sorry but this is an excellent idea!
Obviously it would then take Sussex Police to act on any dangerous/selfish parkers, which they do not seem to bothered about doing!
However it might act as a deterrent to people who abandon there vehicles on the pavements.
And while your at it, put some cameras on the George to monitor the loading bay. Stop these people parking there and blocking it for delivery vehicles!!