THE fallout from last week’s Rother District Council meeting has intensified after a political row erupted over what councillors agreed regarding the future of the Colonnade traders, with accusations of dishonesty, procedural misconduct and political smears now dominating the headlines.
At the centre of the dispute is the motion passed at the Full Council meeting on 14 July, which followed a 4,500-strong petition, calling for the right of seafront traders at the Colonnade to get ‘first refusal’ to return to their units after essential renovation work has completed.
While the traders initially welcomed the decision, which promised ‘favourable consideration’ for returning businesses, Independent Councillor Connor Winter later claimed that what councillors believed they voted for was not what was officially recorded and suggested the process lacked transparency.
In a strongly-worded public statement issued today, the Labour Group of Councillors hit back, accusing Cllr Winter of ‘spurious misrepresentations’ and failing to propose any amendment to secure a guaranteed right of return.
The statement said: “Despite the emphatic speech that was clipped for social media, Cllr Winter made no attempt during the meeting to propose or alter the motion that was written down in front of him.”
“Either Cllr Winter did not read what was in front of him, did not understand it, or is being dishonest about its content. Either way, his claim that the motion minuted is different to what councillors voted on is untrue.”
The Labour Group reiterated that council officers had advised a legal guarantee of return was not possible, and instead Cabinet Member Cllr Christine Bayliss drafted a motion to ensure returning traders would be treated fairly when reapplying for leases.
They added that public misunderstanding may have stemmed from not having sight of the full motion, but that councillors themselves were fully informed.
Cllr Winter has since issued a detailed response, describing the Labour Group’s comments as a ‘calculated misrepresentation’ and ‘deeply inappropriate’.
He told Bexhill News: “The past few days have seen an extraordinary escalation of political attacks, not only against me personally but, more seriously, against the legitimate concerns of residents and business owners.
“Rather than engaging constructively, they have chosen to deflect, mislead, and attack my integrity. I categorically reject their baseless accusations.”
Cllr Winter also criticised Council Leader Doug Oliver for reading a prepared statement at a recent Cabinet meeting which directly named him – something he says amounted to an unfair public rebuke made in a forum where he was not present to respond.
He added “To be absolutely clear, I have broken no Code of Conduct. My actions have been rooted in transparency, democratic scrutiny, and public service. What we are witnessing is an attempt to silence dissent. I will not be intimidated.”
Council Leader Cllr Doug Oliver defended the administration’s actions and expressed concern over the impact of Cllr Winter’s remarks. Cllr Oliver said: “Comments made by Councillor Winter have caused unnecessary confusion, hurt and offence amongst residents and business owners.
“He has accused the Council of procedural impropriety, and although attempts have been made to clarify matters with him, he is continuing to make extremely serious accusations. I have therefore asked the monitoring officer to investigate and take whatever action is deemed appropriate in accordance with the Council’s constitution.”
The original dispute stemmed from a petition campaign led by Colonnade business owner Charlotte Arundell, which asked the council to grant a guarantee of return after the refurbishment. While councillors could not legally grant that assurance, the approved motion states that traders will be treated favourably should they reapply for their units.
