FROM studying the letter in last week’s Observer concerning the ‘supermarket problem’, I understand that writer’s wish to not have their name associated with it!
The first reference therein to council members voting shows it is our town council the writer refers to, and it is thus by implication that the same council are blamed for an old agreement to sell the land, as well as them keeping the money after finally selling the land elsewhere.
I hope the following facts will help that anonymous person!
Firstly, East Sussex County Council have maintained their ‘ownership’ of the site, since the Lower School buildings were cleared away, and they have left it derelict all these very many years to eventually get the best possible price for county finances.
While Tesco’s were being talked about, the land was suddenly sold to Sainsbury’s and it is the county council who have the £3m from selling our land.
Secondly, Rother District Council, regrettably, are the planning authority and they have made similar objections on position, safety, and appearance as did our local council.
Thirdly, Rye Town Council (ie local people!), since the May election changes, have expressed strong and clear objections to Rother.
Fourthly, that land was allocated in the Local Development Framework for housing, with 40 per cent to be affordable for local people!
I trust that these facts will assist last week’s letter-writer, and show that their criticisms must now be aimed at the real offenders - our masters in the higher levels of local government.
Surely our new town council, formed only this May by the people of Rye, are already standing up for us!