• We welcome your views
and will publish them without fear or favour.
• We reserve a right of reply, and
we welcome others' comments.
• We will not publish abusive, discriminatory or anonymous letters.
•
Opinions expressed are those of the letter writer and may not reflect the
opinions of SHRA. SHRA accepts no responsibility for them.
Please click here to email us your letters or post them to us (see Contacts page). Note: Generally, letters received by SHRA will not be published on the web unless your permission to do so is clearly indicated.
03 July - Letter sent to The Herald by
Stewart Mitchell as a follow up to his letter of 6th June (see below) to EBC's
Leader, Councillor Tutt
Dear Sir,
I enclose copies of the three letters I wrote on 6 June 2010 to Cllr. Tutt,
Leader EBC, Stephen Lloyd, M.P. and Robert Cottrill, Chief Executive EBC.
To date I have received no reply from any of them.
This is of course disappointing but not entirely surprising. Here I am, a fully
paid–up contributor to the beauty of Eastbourne and I should sit back and be
grateful for all the benefits I reap for being a member, albeit on the edge, of
this wonderful town.
What right have I to expect to live in a ‘Sustainable Community’ in the ‘Town
Within a Town’ that Sovereign Harbour has become? Why do I keep on about the
absence of community facilities, that there are no open spaces, play areas,
community centre and so on and so on? Promises to do something about it? What
promises? Oh - those!
I should just shut up and do it the Eastbourne way – be grateful for what I have
and allow hundreds of other dwellings to be built, so that they too can enjoy
living on the most overcrowded housing estate of modern times.
If I sound disgruntled, it is because I am – and I am not alone!
Yours sincerely,
Stewart O Mitchell.
25 June - Letter about plans for more housing at
Sovereign Harbour sent to the Eastbourne Herald by South Harbour
resident Marj Pratt
Dear sir,
In the beginning, when The Duke of Devonshire's estates and Tarmac, (now
Carillion) conspired to create Sovereign Harbour they were abetted by the
unbridled enthusiasm of Eastbourne Borough Council. The commercial interests
of the first two spawned a couple of spin offs, the development of the
marina and the Sovereign Harbour Trust. Both of which take money directly
and indirectly from local residents.
As the number of dwellings expanded from the original 500 or so, to over
3500 no effort was made by EBC to curb the development or to demand payback
in the way of viable infrastructure. In fact, since 2004, local politicians
have supported a large development by B&Q, more excessive housing, and
commercial developments on the Harbour frontage which would blight all open
views.
It was only following huge pressure from local residents that the
politicians jumped on the bandwagon and these proposals were dropped and the
SHRA secured a landmark, cross party motion that "no more dwellings" would
be allowed to be built on the Harbour. This really was a remarkable
achievement because it established the principle of sustainable development
over commercial greed. However, we should not be surprised to learn that our
own ward councillors and EBC are now trying to override this agreement.
Time and again our "representatives" have stood in the way of popular
demand. From delaying the creation of a Health Centre, squandering resources
on election gimmicks such as the £10,000 from the devolved budget and now by
supporting the "Local Development Framework; Core Spatial Development
Strategy". In other words, let's dump more housing on Sovereign Harbour.
It is a flawed and discreditable strategy on many levels, not least because
it was created to appease the policies of a now defeated government. Can
someone please breathe the breath of sanity upon it and put it out of its'
misery?
And is it too much to hope that our councillors will for once do their
job without strong pressure from a few activists who care passionately about
the future, or will they simply confirm that they never learn from the past?
When our elected representatives emerge from the raw sewage of party
politics and demonstrate that they have commitment, talent and the guts to
stand and face the landowners, when our Council Officers demonstrate their
competence and clarity, there may be a chance that Sovereign Harbour can
move forward and the residents can enjoy public open spaces and the kind of
facilities that the rest of the people in Eastbourne take for granted and
for which we all pay dearly.
If, however, they continue on their present course, like castaways clinging
to a deflated dinghy, we can wave goodbye to our investment in Eastbourne and
watch it disappear into the sunset aboard Carillion's golden galleon...
again.
Yours sincerely,
Marj Pratt
19 June - Letter to SHRA from South Harbour resident Carole Penney about Midnight Charity Walk
I
see that there is an objection for the 'Midnight Walk' raising money for cancer
from the SHRA. Is this the committee or the members? I certainly wasn’t asked
how I felt about it!!!!!
Shame on you SHRA and the Harbour Rotary Club. This
is a fund raising exercise where by lots of women give up their time, staying up
late to raise money for people they may have lost or are losing someone.
I felt
quite embarrassed reading the letter. How do you know what kind of noise there
will be??? We in the houses on the Strand are often awake at that time because
of the noise of many drunken people coming from the late night pubs and
restaurants on the Waterfront so would probably not feel it a problem if the
March were to come along there.
Why can’t you wait and welcome the event and
if the 'noise' level is too much for you to bear then you will have something to
moan about.
Your comments are really fitting in with the description that has
been given to Eastbourne, 'it’s full of oldies'. I for one will be supporting
the March and welcome a bit of excitement on the Harbour.
Carole Penney
[Member of SHRA]
Response from SHRA
To say that there is an objection from SHRA to the
Midnight Walk is to overstate the case. When the organisers chose to engage
us, the harbour section of the route had already been decided and, as we
felt this was unnecessarily close to a large number of residential
properties, we expressed our concerns.
It is a fact that the only residential areas affected by this walk are in
Sovereign Harbour and, as there will be no roadside collections, we could
see no reason why the route could not have been restricted to the seafront,
and adjacent open areas.
It was our view that although we fully supported the objectives of the very
worthwhile children’s charity, we felt that we could not support the chosen
route.
Since we expressed these concerns, there have been some changes that reduce
the likely disturbance, but this could still be significant. For example,
the section of harbour walkway along the North Harbour passes very close to
about 400 residential properties; the homes of people of all ages, some, no
doubt, who will be going to work the next day. The fact that you suffer
night noise disturbance doesn’t make it right that others should also
suffer.
You ask how we know what kind of noise there will be; we don’t know, but
having been approached, we were obliged to make a judgement. We acted in
what we believed was the best interest of our members, that is what they
elected us to do. We might have been wrong, only time will tell.
If, as seems likely, this walk becomes an annual event, we must hope that
the organisers engage us early enough in the process that the charity can
gain the maximum benefit with the minimum disruption to people’s daily
lives.
14 June - Copy of letter sent to MP Stephen Lloyd by South Harbour resident Mary Tobias, about plans for more housing at Sovereign Harbour
Dear Mr Lloyd,
Congratulations on winning your seat in what might be the most interesting
Parliament for yonks. I write with a more parochial issue.
I am a member of SHRA and have received an e-mail suggesting that no council
member opposed the building of more houses in the area of Sovereign Harbour.
I do not and have never understood the planning permission given to the
company building those dreadful high rise buildings in the middle of the
harbour.
What is also too difficult to take on board is that the council will not oppose any further development of this area... When the roads are unmarked and irresponsible car owners park where they like, and we have too few medical services to service the area and too few schools to accommodate further development.
Yours
Mary Tobias
Stephen Lloyd replied to Mary's letter (above) on 20 June
Hi Mary,
Apologies for the delay in replying to your email.
As promised at the public meeting that I had with SHRA a couple of weeks
ago, I will be opposing any new development and have notified the Council
accordingly. To be fair to them what I would flag up is:
a) These 150 or so dwelling emcompass the whole of Sovereign ward.
b) They are the maximum number to built in this area upto and including
2026.
c) The Borough Council tells me that part of any agreement with a
developer, if any of the properties where to be in the Harbour, no building
could take place until a community facility was established first.
I might add that the demand for local authorities to provide this type of
housing in the South East, was from the previous Government. None of us are
sure at the minute how the Coalition Government wishes to proceed.
With best wishes
Stephen
Stephen Lloyd MP
Eastbourne & Willingdon Constituency
6 June - Letter sent to Councillor Tutt, Leader of EBC, by North Harbour resident, Stewart Mitchell about The LDF Core Spatial : Development Strategy Report that threatens the Harbour with more home building.
Dear Cllr. Tutt,
LDF – Spatial Development Strategy
When you kindly visited our home in November 2008 you assured us that you fully
recognised the failure to date, on the part of Eastbourne Borough Council, to
ensure that Sovereign Harbour was provided with the social amenities it required
to enable it to develop as a sustainable community.
You promised to apply your energies and those of your colleagues to ensure that
we got what had been promised for many years.
You also agreed that the Harbour had been grossly over-developed and, indeed,
there is a cross-party agreement that there shall be no further residential
development in Sovereign Harbour.
Imagine my dismay to read the report to Cabinet 26 May 2010 on the Spatial
Development Strategy and, in particular that you were part of the Senior Members
Group which saw the report through to Cabinet.
The report emphasises throughout the requirement on you to provide ‘sustainable
communities’ and you propose to dump yet more dwellings on a township that you
accept is already unsustainable as a community because you have failed to
provide the social infrastructure that is essential to its wellbeing.
The argument, presumably, is that along with the 150 dwellings will come a
community centre and open space. – BUT it will be of a size suitable for that
150 group only. The needs of the nearly 4000 homes you have allowed to be built
will, yet again, be ignored.
Am I losing a little faith in your promises of support? I think so!
What is surely needed is for the Council to use its power of compulsory purchase
and acquire from Carrillion the land required for the amenities we need and to
insist that they, Carrillion, fund the developments from the huge profits
already made in the building of such a large housing estate.
S. Mitchell
Sovereign Harbour
Stewart copied his letter to Robert Cottrill, EBC Chief Executive and to Stephen Lloyd MP, with the following covering letters
Dear Mr Cottrill,
I enclose a copy of the letter I have sent to Cllr. Tutt.
I need only add that I have previously made a complaint to the Local
Authority Ombudsman about maladministration in the Council. This was
rejected because decisions had been made by the Council too long ago for an
investigation to be made.
Your Officials, supported no doubt by many Councillors, appear determined to
continue with a programme of gross overbuild in Sovereign Harbour. I will
hold you to account if the cross party agreement on no more dwellings in the
Harbour is breached.
May I suggest that you turn your attention to honouring promises made to
residents about the provision of the social amenities we so badly need in
order to develop a Sustainable Community.
------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Lloyd,
Congratulations on your victory. I hope you enjoy a happy and successful
time in Parliament.
I enclose a copy of the letter I have sent to Mr Tutt at EBC. It says it all
and explains in some measure why residents in Sovereign feel so isolated
from the obvious plottings being hatched by Carrillion and the Borough
Council.
It seems that no stone will be left unturned in order to cram Sovereign
Harbour with yet more dwellings, regardless of the fact that a new township
has been created with none of the social infrastructure that has been
promised and is so sorely needed.
You promised to help. Here’s your chance!
Archived letters... (subjects include Trust charges, Harbour heros and road gritting)