I attended the special full council meeting on Monday November 10 knowing that I was going to receive much opposition to my proposal to postpone the appointment of a town steward for Rye until an appointment had been made for what I saw as more important, a Rye community traffic warden.
I had prepared a statement which I read out to the meeting. The response was negative, although one or two, including the mayor, did feel I had made some good points with regard to having better traffic management in Rye. The vote, as expected, went against me. There was much debate as to whether the post holder would be in-house or self-employed. It was generally felt that it would be preferable for many reasons that the person should be employed by Rother.
I was very disappointed with the outcome as I thought council members had not thought deeply enough with the possible outcome of not having any traffic management in the town. This could have further consequences should there be another incident in which either a fire appliance or ambulance could not reach its destination due to inconsiderate parking in the street by vans or cars.
I informed members that I was investigating the role of a community warden who operates in Headcorn, a village in which I once lived and still visit from time to time too see friends. I had by chance read one of his monthly reports in the parish magazine and rang him. He has put me in touch with his district co-ordinator, and I hope soon to have some facts and figures for Rye Town Council. I am not giving up on this as I feel it is vital that traffic management does not get thrown into the long grass, as so frequently happens with so many things in Rye in my long experience. I would welcome comments from readers of Rye News.
See Granville Bantick’s statement during the debate, A matter of priority
The author is a Rye town councillor