As we report in the News section this week, the biggest shake-up of local government in decades has been announced by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner. Much of the attention has been focussed on East Sussex and Rother District councils so where does that leave Rye Town Council and the local parish councils? Here are the thoughts of Rye mayor Andy Stuart.
It saddens me that, when it comes to local government, like its predecessor, this government has demonstrated a woeful level of ignorance.
As part of a range of devolution measures announced this week, the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner suggested that the ‘two-tier’ English counties and the district / boroughs within them will be abolished in favour of regional strategic authorities with a directly-elected mayor.
The two-tier reference has been parroted by the mainstream media, despite the fact that the structure of local government in the counties is overwhelmingly three-tier! Once again, a government has failed to acknowledge the existence of around 10,000 parish / town councils in England alone.
These councils are the closest we have to local decision making. Abolishing East Sussex and Rother to help to create a ‘mega council’ across East and West Sussex – and Brighton & Hove may result in some powers being devolved from Whitehall – but it is more likely that powers that are currently relatively localised will become both regionalised and remote.
We may complain now that Rother and county don’t really care about Rye but, if we find ourselves with a directly-elected regional mayor, the situation could rapidly become a whole lot worse!
Those of us who are concerned that the government’s devolution agenda will have the opposite effect – with power and resources transferring upwards – need to start making our concerns known now.
That said, it is not all doom and gloom – if regionalisation is foisted upon us, it may provide Rye Town Council with an opportunity to deliver services that were provided formerly by Rother and county, enhancing local control and accountability.
Image Credits: Stuart Harland .
Seems to me from comments over the years on this site that not a lot of people will mourn the demise of Rother District Council (RDC). It has always seemed ridiculous to me that three councils are responsible for what occurs in Rye: East Sussex, RDC and Rye Town (Rye Town having the least power). I think you are right in your last paragraph Mr Mayor in that now is the time to engage with this process and see what the truly local council (Rye Town) can wrest back from RDC as it disappears …
I suspect that one of the main reasons for creating a so-called ‘unitary authority’ for Sussex is to push through planning ‘reform’ measures which, in effect, will mean local people have no say on what gets built in their area. Strategic gaps and green belts will be ignored, housing estates will spring up on open fields and flood plains near you and developers will be able to build wherever they wish. Rother District Council planners have already identified target housing sites in and around Rye, even though some landowners have not announced that the land is for sale. Objections by local residents seeking to protect their environment will simply be ignored. One example is the vital strategic gap (on flood-prone land well below tidal level) between Rye and Rye Harbour, which Martello Developments is looking to build on. This would unite Rye with the RH industrial zone. Pure madness in my view, and I suspect many in the town council and Rye business community would agree that Rye’s unique character must be protected. The topography of Rye (a tiny promontory surrounded by marsh and three rivers) and its historic nature make it singularly unsuitable for development.
Rye is not just a tourist town,it’s a town where people live and work, making excuses about flood plains especially when after the Eastern wall in Rye is finished next year,we will be one of the most protected areas for miles. Of course the Nimbys around us will disagree,but really do we need Rye to become another Clovelly in years to come, Rye must look after our young, else that is what it will become, and its not healthy,for Rye in the future.
I suspect Mayor Andy is correct to identfy opportunities for greater local provision under a unitary system. I recently arrived from the Highlands of Scotland which took the unitary route a while back. Our village now has management supervision of snow clearance, recreational facilities, toilets, social housing and even the church!
For us it took a strong community spirit, dedicated and sustained volunteer time and acquiring competence in contract management. Above all, perhaps, it required willingness to compromise in outlining a clear shape for ‘local benefit’, by which policy decisions can be guided.