| Residents' Letters | ||
|
We welcome your views and will publish them without fear or favour. However, we will not publish letters that are abusive or discriminatory, nor will we publish anonymous opinions. Opinions expressed on this page are those of the writer and the SHRA accepts no responsibility for them. Subjects for discussion: Three-way
talks should continue (4 responses posted) |
||
|
On 5th August, South Harbour resident Andrew Roff wrote to the Eastbourne Herald and copied Waterlines The
title of your article "Harbour residents slam talks" is misleading.
I am a resident of Sovereign Harbour and I It
is the SHRA committee which has "slammed" the talks - I am sure
the majority of Sovereign Harbour residents In the past few months, we have had the local councillors stating that they cannot work with SHRA. Now this week we have SHRA stating that they cannot work with the EBC. I
just want to say to the councillors and the SHRA - I don't care if you
don't like each other, just take a deep The
EBC councillors and the SHRA committee are both elected by the residents,
and should be working for the The
SHRA has done some excellent work over the last few years and has shown
itself to be a strong political force On 5th August Ian Weeks responded Andrew, if only it were as simple as you describe it. I was involved in the three-way discussions for over two years and made every effort to put the case for the final stages of the harbour development to provide the facilities that we all desperately need. When we entered into the discussions, it was on the basis of a statement by Carillion Development's MD who, in essence, said that he realised that mistakes had been made and they would work to rectify them. The discussions started well and it seemed progress was being made but it gradually became clear that Carillion had no intention of providing anything for residents without agreement for even more residential development, and even then, little of substance. As time went on, the proposals from Carillion became more and more like a rehash of the 'Five Sites' applications that residents jammed the Town Hall to protest against. We found ourselves under pressure from the council team to concede that additional residential development was inevitable, which made life very difficult. The discussions had always been cross-party and after the 2007 elections, that continued. However, the Carillion team were obviously becoming frustrated by our refusal to endorse their proposals and requested 'technical discussions' with the council team from which the SHRA team was to be excluded because of 'commercial sensitivity'. The discussions took place and, although we had been promised that we would be 'kept in the loop' our requests for a follow-up meeting were refused. When we found that a further secret meeting had taken place and that Cllr. Elkin, the leader of the Conservative group had also been excluded, we had no option but to withdraw. Personally, I resent the inference that I and my committee colleagues are not working for the community, I have spent the last three years doing little else, without much help from those I am working for. It has nothing to do with who likes whom, or squabbling and posturing, it's about betrayal of trust. As you will see from the August issue of Waterlines, the consequences of the council's failure to support harbour residents are likely to be far reaching. On 6th August, SHRA Chairman, Rick Runalls responded: Dear Andrew Having read the letter you sent to the Herald I admit to being surprised. The flavour tends to suggest that you think the SHRA committee have withdrawn from the Integrated Plan process because we do not get on with our councillors. I realise that you are working out of the country for long periods and may have missed some of the issues develop, but I hoped that as a supporter of the SHRA you would have had a better view of the Committee. I have personally been working for 4 years trying to improve the Harbour environment and the rest of the Committee have been similarly committed. Without that and the support of residents there would not be any 'Harbour talks'. Knowing this, as I'm sure you do, do you really believe that having dedicated so much time we would withdraw from discussions on the remaining development of the Harbour in a 'fit of pique' over our councillors? This decision to withdraw was taken unanimously by the Committee after weeks of effort to break out of the destructive situation being promoted by our councillors. I first wrote to the Leader of the LibDem group on the Council in December last year suggesting a meeting to close the gap between our Councillors and the SHRA. I had no reply, but persevered. I finally managed to get a meeting booked but the date passed without the meeting being confirmed. I again contacted Cllr. Tutt and a meeting was organised well in advanced. This was cancelled out two days before it was due because Cllr. Tutt was double-booked. I had no further contact from him but, not easily put off, I tried again and in May this year we finally met and he said he would 'see what he could do' to improve things. We have had no further contact from him and nothing has changed. Having been through all this we have been at pains to tell him and our councillors that our door is open and we wish they would work with us rather than against us. In trying to build bridges I'm not sure there is anything more we could have done while seeking to make sure residents' priorities didn't become secondary to party politics. When the SHRA Committee finally decided to withdraw it was after weighing up what could be gained by staying in the process, against what could be lost. In particular we were concerned not to undermine our ability to keep fighting for residents interests. You should realise that we had shared with both the Council and Carillion the results of the Open Meeting we had organised to gather residents' priorities for remaining development, so they were well aware of unfiltered residents' views. We had attended every meeting to which we were invited to continue promoting those views and had written to record and follow-up our feedback from those meetings. We were happy to do so and were upbeat while we believed we were being effective and part of the team. We never expected it to be easy and it wasn't! However, we started to get cut out of meetings at which critical issues were being debated and we were promised a meeting to get feedback from these but the Council failed to do set this up. All this time, as part of the process we were bound by 'Chatham House Rules' and were consequently restricted from keeping residents abreast of the detail. We did everything we were able to do to represent Harbour residents, but unfortunately as a resident group without authority we were powerless to prevent being sidelined. So we had grasped the benefits of being at meetings while we could, but we had to address the danger of being impotent and nothing more than a token gesture. Under these circumstances there is a real danger of being claimed as supporting any decisions the Council and Carillion make between them even though cut out of the process. There really was not practical alternative but to withdraw. We know from council officers that the leading group on the Council believes we are too influential and a hotbed of Tory activists. They have already been quoted in print as believing we undermine their authority. Our attempts to strike up dialogue with them have been rejected. Sadly discussions / negotiations require intent from both sides, not just SHRA. I think one of the SHRA Committee summed the situation up when we were discussing the situation - it hardly needs us to withdraw from the process, there is no process as far as SHRA involvement is concerned. I am at a loss to understand your letter given everything we have worked for. There is still much we can do. We were very effective as activists outside the process and we will do our best to become so again On 12th August, Andrew Roff replied Ian, Rick, Thank you for the detailed explanations of the background to the withdrawal of SHRA from the three-party talks on the future of Sovereign Harbour. I can understand your frustration with the lack of progress and I fully sympathise. It would be interesting to hear what Councillor Tutt has to say on the subject - particularly with reference to the points that Rick raised. At no time did I infer that Ian or the SHRA committee were not working for the community. I have never questioned Ian's or the committee's commitment or effort. However, sometimes I disagree with the tactics being used, or the philosophy being followed. When that happens, then I will write in, to ask questions, or to argue for some alternative view. On 12th August, Ian Weeks responded. Andy, Thanks for the response and the vote of confidence, it is appreciated. Do keep the letters coming, as a member, you have the right to challenge and question, and I wouldn't have it any other way; I always find your point of view interesting. Sometimes, we can get so involved in the serious issue that we can risk losing sight of the big picture. Your letter showed that we need to explain our position more clearly. I hope that Rick and my responses, and the August issue of Waterlines will help. |
||
|
On 11th July, North Harbour resident Michael Wardroper wrote to Waterlines I
know quite a lot has already been said about the North Harbour Bridge
and I had meant to raise it with you some time ago. Nevertheless you may
wish to have this, late though it is. As
you well know this draw bridge provides the main pedestrian access from
the south of the bridge to the Waterfront and Retail Park and it is unacceptable
for the bridge to be raised regularly, and held open, for period with
no good reason. It was on 1st July when I became aware of what I believe are the new bridge opening timings. It was about 9 a.m. when I arrived on the south side and there were a number of people already waiting for it to be lowered. I judge that I waited 10 minutes there before it was lowered and during the whole of that time there was no boat traffic in either direction. I consider myself a "boatie" ( I hold an RYA qualification and am a qualified member of the US Power Boat Squadron), and this is of course a marina where boats should rightly enjoy some priority. However, the needless opening of the bridge when there is no boat traffic brings the system into disrepute and and understandably upsets pedestrians waiting to cross. Surely the problem can easily be solved by the use of cameras so that the bridge operator can use his sense to close the bridge immediately boats have passed or not to open it at the appointed times if he knows (and can see) that there is no requirement. At the moment it is an inconsiderate nonsense. |
||
|
On 10th July, North Harbour resident Richard Rook wrote to Waterlines Since writing to Waterlines, I have now seen Dave Needham's comments in the Eastbourne Herald - to the effect that residents will just have to use their watches. What a crass comment it is. When going to the only local place where I can buy a newspaper (at the retail park) my timetable is dictated by the length of the queues at the supermarket and sadly these don't reconise arbitrary timings set by Premier Marinas. Hence when I was returning a few days ago, though I tried to be at the bridge when it was lowered I just missed the window and so again had to wait for over 10 minutes. And,
similar to my previous experience, during this time not a single vessel
passed the bridge site, whilst at the end of the opening period there
were 63 people waiting to cross. Many of these people were angry and frustrated
at the pointless delay, asking why the bridge was open when there was
absolutely no boat movement. Amongst these were some boat owners, who
could not get to their boats! |
||
|
On 9th July, the SHRA Chairman, Rick Runalls wrote to Premier Marinas and copied Waterlines Bridge Closure Trial I know you and Ian Weeks (SHRA Press Officer) have been in contact regarding your trial of regular bridge operation and I read your responses to Ian dated 2 & 8 July, and the quote published in the Herald to say that Premier Marinas had consulted both berth holders and residents before embarking on the trial. I wish to first underwrite Ian's comments regarding the strength of feeling against this regime and interestingly this is coming from berth holders as well as SHRA members and other residents. Your assertion in the e-mail of 8 July that you have had 'few complaints, but very positive responses from many others' is entirely at odds with the feedback we are getting. Secondly, can you tell me which residents / residents groups were consulted before you implemented this, since it certainly was not SHRA. Although my first reaction to your plan was to let the trial run I have since become confused about exactly what is driving the change. Your announcement, which we displayed on the SHRA web site, stated that the regime was being implemented due to H&S concerns. I took this at face value, but I failed to see how the periodicity of bridge openings was going to significantly affect the safety of pedestrians or boat users, and I have had many years experience in H&S inspection and risk assessment. However, in your response to Ian Weeks on 2 July I note a whole list of reasons and the cost of running the marina appears to be the underlying focus. In summary I think this whole issue is confused and has been poorly managed. You are now in danger of alienating residents of Sovereign Harbour, visitors and even berth holders it appears. The situation is worsening and the feeling that residents' interests are being placed second to those of berth holders and Premier's business interests can only grow in my view. This is a dangerous situation bearing in mind how close the community and the marina are integrated. In considering what your approach I would draw your attention to the 106 Agreement of 14/10/2004 (Planning Application Ref EB/2002/0292 RM), which was entered into with EBC by Sovereign Harbour Ltd. and Sovereign Harbour Marina Ltd. This makes it clear that the North Harbour Bridge and the pedestrian route shall be open for free and uninterrupted public access on foot unless raised for the passage of vessels. This is contrary to a regime where the bridge is unnecessarily left raised when there are no vessels requiring passage through. I would strongly urge you to cease the trial and think this thing through. Once again SHRA would like to offer a meeting with you so we can better understand exactly what the driver is for this and what the implications of alternatives would be. |
||
|
On 9th July, the Chairman of the Hamilton Quay Residents Association wrote to Premier Marinas and copied Waterlines The bridge timing trials have now been in place for one week, and we are setting out the following comments and objections on behalf of a number of our residents:
It seems to us to be perfectly ridiculous for the bridge to be left raised for 15 minute periods when for many of those raised periods not one boat goes through. Surely it would be better for the bridge to remain lowered during those periods, so as to avoid inconveniencing pedestrians and only raised, upon request, for boats during those periods. This would be far better for pedestrians and would be no more inconvenient for boat users than the current experimental arrangements. It is also likely, given that under these arrangements the bridge is often raised when no boats require passage, the aggregate number of bridge openings may be reduced The notice that you issued to berth-holders implied that the trial was due to health and safety issues. It is hard to understand what health and safety issues you might have in mind - previously the bridge was raised and lowered for shipping and now it is raised and lowered 28 times between the hours of 08:00. and 22:00. We particularly question the integrity of the health and safety argument as members of your staff are openly saying that the trial is to save wear and tear on the bridge and to save Premier Marinas money. We also wish to point out that we have been met by absolute disinterest by your office when phoning to complain that dozens of people were waiting on both sides of the bridge - the only response from your staff being "write in, we're collecting complaints". It is particularly irritating and inconvenient for all users of the bridge when, on at least one occasion, it was up for far more than the expected 15 minute period. We would recommend that this trial is abandoned immediately and would appreciate your early response to this letter. |
||
|
On 7th July, south harbour resident Carole Penney wrote to Premier Marinas and copied Waterlines I would just like to bring your attention to the inconvenience of people in the Harbour, particularly those in South Harbour. As
you are probably aware there are major works happening on the ramp at
the bottom of Key West. This pathway is completely out of use. The work
that is going on there is of great importance. Though why it was decided
it should happen in the height of the summer I am not sure. There are
a lot of people in Eastbourne at this time of year and I am sure there
could have been another time that this could have happened. We were also
told that it had a time for finishing and of course it hasn't finished
anywhere near the time we were told. To get to the shops or Waterfront restaurants people from South Harbour have to walk across the locks round the North Harbour and across North Bridge. We were pre warned that this was going to happen. At the beginning of last week I was returning from the shopping area and on arrival at North bridge it elevated. I with about 30 other people stood waiting for a boat to go through. This didn't happen so we waited and waited still no boats. I was just about to call the Harbour office when I saw an A4 piece of paper saying that the trials of the opening and closing of North Bridge [2x hourly] was starting that day. There was no warning, no discussion with people living on the harbour. And as you know we all have to pay a fee towards the costs of the Harbour!!!!!. Returning home I called the office and was told that the Harbour Master/Mistress was not there. I had a conversation with a gentleman who works there and enquired as to who had made the decision for this opening and closing. I was told it was the Harbour Master's decision. And that he couldn't understand why it was happening. I am appalled that she could make this kind of decision with out consulting or notifying the residents in the Harbour. What else is being planned. I still would like to know what benefits this has on the Harbour for anyone And when will the trial period be over and what will it prove. |
||
| On
7th July, north harbour resident Eddie McClung wrote to Premier Marinas
and copied Waterlines
I understand that there are some 3500 residents in Sovereign Harbour, all of whom need to use the bridges to get to and from the shops at the Waterfront and Crumbles and many of those use the bridges on a regular daily basis.
I am staggered that the operators have imposed a trial period of closing the bridge without any consultation or informing residents. The only notification to users of the bridges was a notice on a pillar which had been posted sometime on Sunday morning. This indicates the distain with which your company treats local residents.
Before even attempting to upset the status quo your company could have consulted and informed residents through the vehicle of the Residents Association, of which I am sure you are well aware: but you chose to ignore it too.
The idea of closing the bridges for 15 minutes, regardless of traffic, means that the bridges will be unavailable to pedestrians ( and outgoing and incomings boats) for a total of SEVEN hours of the day from 08.00 till 22.00, or HALF OF EVERY HOUR.
That also means that residents will be compelled to keep to a rigid timetable of getting to and from the shops to avoid waiting at the bridge and could add an extra 30 minutes of waiting time just to make a short trip the shops. Again, where will users be able to wait and SHELTER when it’s raining.
In addition to the lack of consideration for the residents there is also the affect this will have on visitors. They won’t be too pleased to have to wait at the bridges for no reason ( particularly when there are no boats going in and out). During the summer months there could up to 150-200 people waiting at both sides of North bridge along with their prams, bicycles, dogs and shopping: and they won’t like standing in the rain either. Instead of attracting visitors to the harbour this will detract them from returning and I’m sure our local Waterfront traders won’t like that
I would also like to know if your plans to restrict movement and free passage around the harbour without consultation have the approval of that other arrogant local body, Sovereign Harbour Trust. On 7th July, Ian Weeks responded. Although I have sympathy with your sentiments, it is not true to say that no notification was given. The SHRA did receive advance warning of the closures and posted this information on the 'News' page of our website. However, contrary to the quote in Friday's Eastbourne Herald, there was no prior consultation, and we would certainly not have given our blessing to the regime that has been imposed. Also, the number of residents being inconvenienced is far greater than you state, there are 3,500 plus households on Sovereign Harbour, most of them having multiple occupants. On 7th July, Eddie McClung ahain wrote to Premier Further to my recent UNANSWERED email objecting to the enforced closures of the harbour bridges. Two days after the new regime came into force the original notices on the north bridge were replaced by more permanent ones. Whilst the original notice stated that the new schedule was for a trial period and that comments were invited, the new ones make no mention of the trial period, orany invitation for comments. Indeed, if one wanted to make a comment the only telephone number on the notices is in microscopic print. Do these changes infer that the trial period has finished after two days and that no vehicle is available for further comment ?? If the so called experiment is to continue would it be possible to adher to your own schedule. On three occasions I have had to wait 4, 3 and 2 minutes past the scheduled time: my wife has had to wait two three minute delays (once in the rain): another lady complained to my wife that she had to wait 5 minutes on one occasion. It is further frustrating that in the last eight days since the regime started I have not seen a single vessel go through north bridge whilst I have been waiting. |
||
|
On 7th July, harbour resident Neil Potter wrote to Premier Marinas and copied Waterlines I hope that your trail of having fixed opening times fro the North Bridge in Sovereign Harbour will not be extended. As a resident of North Harbour we bought our residence in the belief that community was being built here and that facilities would benefit residents as well as marinas operations. The trial benefits neither resident walkers or boat movements. The situation as it existed before worked logically and those pedestrians or boats owners accepted their 'luck' if they had to wait a few minutes while bridge operations were undertaken. There were times in the last few days (I have photographs) when over 60 walkers had to wait over 14 minutes while no boats passed under the bridge. A boat went through as the bridge was raised. The current system will simply alienate residents against Premier Marinas. I do hope that you will not continue with this system once the trail is over. If you do continue with this scheme will you be building shelters (from the elements) for 30+ people on both sides of the bridge? |
||
|
On 5th July, North Harbour resident Richard Rook wrote to Waterlines Somehow
I missed the SHRA announcement of the North Bridge opening and closing
trial, so I only 'discovered' it by means of the posters at the bridge
which announce the current opening and closing periods. However, unlike
the relevant posters at the lock, so far as I could see these do not make
it clear that the new timings are only a trial and nor do they give any
information on how residents and other bridge users can input feedback,
by post or email, on the implications of the new system. One would have
thought that, if this is really a trial, Premier Marinas would have established
a mechanism for such feedback and given it due publicity. |
||
|
On 25th June, harbour resident Roger Smith, wrote to Waterlines At first glance the proposed regular raising and lowering of the bridges in the harbour seems a worthwhile idea. However I can see that boat owners/operators will find the timings too inflexible, bearing in mind that there are many movements within the harbour, which are not connected to lock-in/out times. This will almost certainly mean additional raisings will be made in due course even if resisted at first.
It should also be noted that there will be many periods (eg evenings), when the bridge is raised for no purpose, resulting in an increase in energy use as well as unnecessary wear and tear. This will mean inconvenience and disruption to pedestrians for no good reason and their access restricted even further. It may well cause an unnecessary increase in motor traffic along Pacific Drive.
Many people have bought homes and businesses on the assumption that the access is available when there are no navigational movements. It will therefore be a breach of trust to adopt this scheme.
As somebody who lives in a house with a clear view of the North Bridge, it has come to mind that account must be taken of the dead time when the bridge is neither up nor down. Pedestrians are barred from the time the warning hooter sounds, boats should not proceed until the green light shows. After the passage of boats there is a delay between the red light coming on and the bridge starting to lower. The halfway delay (-does it stop for a rest?) followed by the wait for the barrier to go up, all add to the dead time. Whose fifteen minutes will be raided to cover these delays?
Many boat operators including leisure fishermen appear to very tardy in confirming they are through the bridge. No doubt the same people are impatient when wanting the bridge raised.
It would certainly help if boaters could be encouraged to proceed within preferred times – perhaps the times suggested – though many working boats including the tour boat may quite reasonably be unable to adhere to these times.
The bridge gets raised for many open boats that from a distance appear that they could, if the crew sat down, get through without the raising. If the owners pay fees at the same rate as taller boats they probably feel quite justified in calling for the raising. If there is not a differential rate perhaps this should be considered. |
||
|
On 8th May, South Harbour resident, Geoff Chatterton, wrote to Waterlines Following the recent AGM meeting can we get an estimate from the SHRA to the Extra charge on our now exorbitant council rates re a community council for Sovereign Harbour residents on fixed incomes re Band E,F as previous figures were based I believe were given were on Band D. On 14th May, Ian Weeks responded. Geoff, sorry for the delay in publishing your letter, it has been a very busy time. There's no easy answer to your question, because the amount payable depends on a number of variables, in particular, the amount of tax that needs to be raised, the number of properties, and the number of properties in each Council Tax band. We have asked the Borough Council for a breakdown of the number of harbour properties in each band but have, so far, not received a response. Once the Community Council has decided how much money needs to be raised, this total is divided by the number of 'band D equivalent' properties. Properties in band D are charge 9/9ths of the rate; band A 6/9ths, band B 7/9ths, band C 8/9ths, band E 11/9ths, band F 13/9ths, band G 15/9ths and band H 18/9ths. Because most harbour properties are above band D, it has been estimated that, on completion, there will be about 6,000 'band D equivalent' properties in the proposed Community Council area. Let's say, as an example, that the Community Council needs to raise £120,000. Then the Community Council precept for a band D property would be £120,000/6000, or £20. In this example, band D properties would pay £20/year or 39p/week, band E would pay £20 x 122%, £24.40/year or 47p/week, band F would pay £20 x 144%, £28.80/year or 55p/week. Even band H properties would only pay £40/year or 78p/week. It has been estimated that, in the first year, during the initial set-up, the council would probably only need to raise about £30,000. That's about 10p/week for a band D property, and even a band H property would only pay about 20p/week These numbers are just examples, but I'm sure they're much more realistic than the 'hundreds of pounds' that have been quoted by some opponents of the Community Council. The important thing to understand is that the council doesn't just pick a number out of the air and then decide how to spend the money; it has to produce a budget and justify it to the electorate. If/when the Borough Council provides the actual breakdown, I will revise the numbers accordingly, but I think they're pretty much in the ballpark. I hope this helps. |
||
|
On 2nd May, North Harbour resident, Steve Thornett, wrote to Waterlines Following on the very lively AGM at the Haven School last night I would like to express a sincere vote of thanks to Rick Runalls and all the Committee Members who have worked so hard for the Association over the last year.Their efforts are much appreciated and I hope they will not feel in any way despondent or diverted by some of last nights speakers who seemed to me to be rather carried away with their own agendas. Rick quite rightly pointed out that SHRA is in rather a unique position as a residents association which has, in the absence of any other body, to spend most if not all of is time campaigning and lobbying on issues and services for the residents and that without any teeth other than its now significant influence. The development of a Community (Parish) Council could carry on this excellent work with the added advantage of having statutory powers the cost of which would be well worth it given the changes and advantages it could bring about. I think the point that our elected Ward Councillors ( conspicuous by their absence for what ever reason ) should be held to account was very well made.I would like them to set up a public meeting or Harbour surgery so that can hear what they actually have to say rather than reading the grossly inaccurate literature they stuff through our doors. Rick and the Team you are doing a great job. Keep at it. |
||
|
On 2nd April, Councillor Margaret Salsbury wrote to Ian Weeks Dear
Ian, On 3rd April, Ian Weeks responded Dear
Margaret, On 6th April, Councillor Salsbury responded Dear
Ian, On 7th April, Ian Weeks responded Dear Margaret, Sorry, I obviously misunderstood, I hoped you wanted to work with the SHRA. As you rightly say, the petition has been submitted. We were informed today that 555 signatures have now been verified and with additional signatures still being delivered, the total will certainly exceed 600, well above the minimum 10% required. This means the process can begin and we must now wait for the Borough Council to publish the Terms of Reference for the consultation. I am amazed that you have not yet met or spoken to a supporter of the Parish Council, especially as over six hundred of them have signed the petition. During the course of collecting the signatures, I had ample opportunity to engage residents and discuss the issues. I personally met over a hundred residents, and only four were opposed to the concept. All of the others involved in collecting signatures have reported similar levels of support. As for arranging a meeting with those who signed the petition, you probably don't understand the situation. The process is now in the hands of the Borough Council and, although the SHRA is anxious to cooperate and will participate in the process whenever invited to do so, we can only wait to see how they will proceed. Ultimately, provided that the consultation is fairly conducted, the outcome will rest, where it should be, firmly in the hands of harbour residents. I hope that you and your ward colleagues will take a similar approach. Regards, Ian |
||
|
On 15th February, South Harbour resident Chris Neighbour wrote to Waterlines I
was interested to read the article in Waterlines (February 2008) on the
role of the Sovereign Harbour Trust. |
||
|
On 11th February, North Harbour resident Reginald Russell wrote to Waterlines As a supporter of the idea of a Parish Council for Sovereign Harbour, I was interested to read the article in "The Herald" as well as posted on the web site regarding meetings with Mr Waterson our local MP. Whilst support from all sources is very welcome I do wonder if Mr Waterson would be as interested if our present local councillors were Conservative. I hope he is not just mischief making!!!! On 11th February, SHRA committee member, Ian Weeks responded. No Reg, I don't believe that Mr Waterson is making mischief. If I did, I wouldn't have posted the news item or issued the Press Release. When the process of setting up a Sovereign Harbour Parish started, there was a Conservative administration in control of EBC. We consulted the then leader, Ian Lucas, and although he had some personal reservations, he said that if we could show popular support for the plan, his administration would not put obstacles in our way. In fact he offered assistance with our research. We also consulted the then opposition leader, David Tutt, who also said that he would support the wishes of harbour residents. However, in a LibDem Focus newsletter distributed before Christmas, our ward councillors, out of the blue, came out against a Parish Council and also tried to say that they had the support of residents. There was no evidence of a consultation having been conducted, and our request for a sight of the data was ignored. We expressed our concerns to David Tutt, now the EBC leader, and the LibDem Parliamentary candidate, Steven Lloyd, and both supported the stance of our ward councillors. Anxious that we should not be isolated, we checked with the current Conservative leader and Sovereign Ward County Councillor, David Elkin. He confirmed that there had been no change in the Conservative policy so, when the opportunity arose to bring up the subject with Mr Waterson,we took it. All of those at the meeting felt that he was genuinely supportive of our objectives and he was very happy to go on record to that effect, with the proviso that we could demonstrate popular support. On 11th February, SHRA Chairman, Rick Runalls responded. I
wish to reinforce Ian Weeks' response to Reg's letter. Firstly, I should
recap that the idea for a parish council arose from a resident on Sovereign
Harbour who had experience of successful parishes in the past, not from
the SHRA Committee. The SHRA Committee took this up and investigated after
which an Open Meeting was held to discuss the pros and cons with residents.
As Ian has pointed out this has been progressed by consultation both with
residents and local political parties. The previous administration expressed
a position of neutrality on the issue as did the opposition, which is
why their policy statement against a parish council in the recent Lib
Dem news sheet came as a total surprise. The SHRA has carefully avoided
adopting any party political bias, but although it frequently feels like
a waste of our effort we must continue to resist any party or group we
believe are putting their own agenda before the interests of residents.
|
||
|
On 1st November, South Harbour Resident Andrew Roff wrote to Waterlines. I think a Parish Council is a bad idea - a Sovereign Harbour resident’s opinion Several members of the Sovereign Harbour Residents Association are in favour of creating a Community Council (= a Parish Council) for Sovereign Harbour, to address the social and administrative needs of the Marina residents. There was a meeting to discuss the idea in July 2007, the front pages of the last two issues of the SHRA “Waterlines” newsletter have been loudly recommending such a council, and the most recent issue of Waterlines proudly announced that the first steps in creating a council were close to completion. My
heart sank when I saw that last issue of Waterlines. I am not convinced
that a Parish Council will be a step Firstly,
may I say that the SHRA has been a major positive influence for the Marina
area, fighting for the SHRA However,
I believe that SHRA are wrong to recommend that a Parish Council be set-up.
I firmly believe that a The
problem with a Parish Council is that it has to follow local government
rules, and so the councillors are The
advantage of a Residents Committee is that it can properly express resident’s
opinions. It can demonstrate, get pictures in the local paper and generally
make a noise (provided everyone stays inside the laws of slander and The
Marina is still being built and we need to carefully monitor the plans
that are put forward. What is going to When
are the remaining streets going to be adopted? The Sovereign Harbour Residents
Association has shown that it can mobilise and protect the interests of
the marina residents. A Parish Council would be brushed aside as an The
issue of local government rules and the effectiveness of the residents
association compared to a Parish Council
The Parish Council sets a local tax called a “precept” that
is added to the annual council rates. The councillors The
members of the Parish Council are elected by the community, but they are
able to bring in other (unelected) The
Parish Council would take over management of public open spaces, playing
fields, public toilets, etc, from the
At this point in the development of Sovereign Harbour, the Parish Council
would be an extra layer of bureaucracy On 6th November, SHRA committee member, Ian Weeks responded. Throughout his letter, Andrew refers to the SHRA as if it is just the twelve committee members; it is in fact an association of about 800 member households, close to 1,500 residents. The SHRA committee was elected by the members to act on their behalf for the benefit of the majority of harbour residents and for that reason is supporting the creation of a Parish Council. If residents feel that the committee members are failing to act appropriately, the mechanism for their removal is clearly stated in the SHRA constitution. As Andrew says, there was an open meeting at the Haven School to discuss the issues and this was seen by the SHRA committee as an opportunity to get a mandate from the members to go ahead. As the show of hands at the end of the meeting demonstrated, there was a very clear majority in favour, so Andrew's statement that a majority of those present were opposed to the idea is absolute nonsense. What is true is that the majority of questions from the floor came from a very vocal group of political activists who had come along with the objective of disrupting the meeting, and with no intention of listening to the arguments. Andrew is fulsome in his praise of what the SHRA has achieved and offers the opinion that the formation of a Parish Council would prevent further progress. He seems to be making the assumption that the current SHRA committee members would all be offering themselves for election to the council. Even with the active support of the Borough Council, it will be at least three years before a council can be operational; a lot can happen in that time. A Parish Council and a residents association are not mutually exclusive, a Parish Council supported by a strong and active SHRA would be difficult to ignore. True, the Parish Council will be financed by a tax on harbour residents, and true, at this stage we have no idea of how much that would be. Andrew, however, seems to forget that a council that was profligate with residents hard earned money would not last very long. Andrew complains that a Parish Council can co-opt unelected members, so can the SHRA committee. It is very easy to prevent that happening, it just needs sufficient residents to put themselves forward for election. If an electorate of 5,000 plus is not able to produce sufficient candidates to fill the available seats, then the future for the harbour is bleak. Andrew complains that the electorate are not able to insist that council members are not political. Although this would be my preference, anybody on the electoral register is eligible for election. If there are sufficient non-political candidates, and they receive the support of the electorate, then the politicians will be excluded. In the final analysis, residents will get the representation they deserve, it's in their hands. That is democracy. It is right that opposing views should be aired, but the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of residents who have been offered the opportunity to sign the petition have been very anxious to do so, and many more are expected to join them. In the two and a half long years that I have been a member of the SHRA committee, I have always acted in what I believe to be the best interests of harbour residents and I am convinced that this is the way forward. On 14th November, South Harbour resident Stewart Mitchell responded. Andrew accurately outlines the issues awaiting resolution in the Harbour. The question is ; how are they to be resolved? Both Eastbourne Council and Carillon are saying,'Look to the future.' But you cannot look to the future without a clear understanding of the past. And the record of both parties is criminally appalling. Only a fool would believe a word either of them say. Look at the record for heaven's sake! To
my mind, the only hope we have of achieving the sense of community and
the amenities necessary to help build it, is for us to gain a legal standing;
a right to be heard and not shoved off with,'Look to the future.' Take the Community Centre and Sports Fields, so prominent by their absence, as simple examples. We could as a Parish Council raise funding and ensure their provision. Certainly neither the Council nor Carillon are going to. Look at the history! We heard at our public meeting what successes other Parish Councils have had. The future is ours to make and a Sovereign Harbour Parish Council would be a strong tool in turning aspiration into fact. On 24th November, Andrew Roff replied. Many thanks to both Stewart and Ian for replying to my letter and discussing some of the points I raised. That
is what I wanted - a debate about the advantages and disadvantages of
the proposed Parish Council, so that I
have known Stewart for many years and we often chat briefly about this
and that. We are in complete agreement I
believe that I have met Ian at a social gathering somewhere, but hopefully
I can introduce myself properly at I
cannot remember "a very vocal group of political activists who had
come along with the objective of disrupting I
was reassured by many of the comments that Ian put forward in his reply,
because he did acknowledge that there is potential for problems and that
is the first step in avoiding any such pitfalls. I agree totally with
his point Finally,
I am very happy that Ian acknowledges that "opposing views should
be aired". I agree that the twelve On 30th November, Ian Weeks responded. My thanks to Andrew for continuing the debate on this very important issue, I wish more residents would become involved. I have to say that my recollection of events at the open meeting, and the level of support from those present differs from Andrew's, but I am happy to agree to disagree. If, as Andrew implies, my response was considered 'rude', then I apologise, this was not my intention.. I agree absolutely that SHRA members have the right to challenge the committee and help to shape the policy of the association, and we have a duty to consider those views and encourage discussion of them. However, we must then take what we consider to be the best route forward, knowing that there will be a degree of disagreement. My point was that, if a significant proportion of the membership feels that we are not acting in their best interest, the constitution provides a mechanism for our replacement. I, for one, would not wish to continue without the support of the membership. The opportunities to collect signatures for the petition are limited and progress is painfully slow, but the response from those who have been approached has been overwhelming. I believe, for example, of over 150 residents of the Madeira Way area approached by Stewart, only Andrew and one other declined to support the proposal. In my personal experience, only one person out of over 100 I have approached declined to sign. I feel, therefore, that we do have the necessary mandate to continue with the process, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to listen and learn. Although
the SHRA can claim significant successes in the planning battles that
have been fought, a Parish Council would have provided a better platform
on which to fight and, if the government succeeds in getting the Planning
Reform Bill into law, then this will be even more important.. For example,
because the Borough Council refused to ask for a hearing in the 'Jones
Homes' appeals, the SHRA was deprived of the opportunity to be a party
in the process, a Parish Council would have had the right to be heard, |
||
|
On 15th October, North Harbour resident, Bob Watts wrote to Waterlines Following your article ‘Whatever happened to our medical centre?’ in the October issue of Waterlines, my question is ‘Who will operate the proposed new medical centre on the harbour’
The current Medical practice on the harbour has operated from a detached house on Barrier Reef Way since 2003. It comprises, as I understand it (from the initial Planning Consent), a single medical practioner, Dr Indango Adoki, and some practice support workers. He operates by virtue of a temporary planning consent.
It is true, as the article states, his planning application was opposed by some residents at the time, but not because it was perceived as delaying the provision of the long awaited health centre but rather because Dr Adoki was attempting to subvert the residential status of the harbour and carry out a commercial operation which he had identified from his employment in a practice in Hampden Park. He managed to persuade Persimmon, the developer, to remove the covenant forbidding commercial development (without consulting the residents), and Carillon to allow the use of development land as a car park (this was presented as a parking solution but of course it is very temporary, when that land is developed there will be no place for a Surgery car park). He obviously had the support of the local PCT. In spite of the objections a temporary planning consent was granted for change of use which was subsequently extended. During the operation of his practice I understand some residents have been abused by his off-harbour patients when reminded that it is anti-social to block their drives with their cars and there is more human activity than one would expect in a residential development during working hours. Other than these, and concerns regarding the storage of medical waste, further problems relating to the practice are not known to me.
The suspicion at the time was that this was a very shrewd move by Dr Adoki to ‘stake his claim’ for the provision of GP services on the harbour so that when the long heralded and extremely long awaited new health centre arrived, this very small practice would be considered for the provision of services in this new facility. His optimism seems to be well placed as there are accounts in Water Lines and elsewhere that seem to assume this is and will be the case. The reality of course is that residents in place prior to the Dr Adoki initiative will have established a perfectly satisfactory relationship with their GP in an off-harbour medical practice. I don’t know how many harbour residents are on Dr Adoki’s list and how many patients he brought from his previous practice but I anticipate a problem if harbour residents are de-listed from their current practice and allocated to a practice fronted by Dr Adoki. We all wish to choose our GP even if the selection list is very short indeed, and having done so we don’t want to have that relationship severed summarily or unnecessarily. One major concern would be the mismatch between potentially large numbers of residents and what appears to be a very small practice. There are problems growing a practice and it was understood prior to 2003 that the established large practice at Princes Park in Wartling Road had been approached to expand into the provision of services on the Harbour within new facilities. That no longer seems to be the case. This is regrettable as the opportunity to utilise the expertise of an existing large high quality operation in what would hopefully be a large modern health centre will have been lost.
I have fundamental objections to small medical practices and also being the subject of others opportunism without my agreement, so I anticipate having to travel off the harbour to avail myself of medical services for the foreseeable future. I hope PCT administrators do not try to de-list and re-allocate me. That would be unacceptable. On 16th October, North Harbour resident, Steve Thornett, responded as follows: As a North Harbour resident and registered patient at Dr Adoki's practice I find Bob Watts recent letter and attitude (15/10) completely unacceptable. He is obviously writing as someone who has no experience of using this excellent practice. I can of course sympathize with nearby residents who experience disruption during working hours and who will be glad when a permanent site is finally secured. What I find so unacceptable is the suggestion that as a small practice it is not serving the community well and that Dr Adoki is acting in some subversive and underhand way. To my knowledge and first hand experience of the practice it has 3 doctors and 2/3 nurses as well as other specialists who visit for clinics. They provide a very efficient service in limited facilities and should be applauded for the their efforts and the great job they are doing. Those of us who have moved from other parts of the town have been directed to use the Harbour Practice and in doing so have found it to be much easier to get appointments and to park (on the spare ground) and the attention and medical care to be excellent. I am sure too that Dr Adoki has had to follow all the legal/planning and other procedures required to operate in the way he has and will do so in the future If
Bob Watts wishes to travel to a large in town or other off harbour practice
that is his matter, but don't knock our Harbour provision which many of
us are fighting to establish. |
||
|
On 20th September, a North Harbour resident, who supplied his name and address but wished to remain anonymous, wrote to Waterlines Thank you SHRA and September Waterlines for raising and in some cases resolving the many issues associated with the administration of what is a small town (or a large village). Reading through the September Waterlines one gets a real sense of the lack of commitment from the Borough Council Officers and Councillors to the Harbour beyond the collection of Council Tax. We are the football which the local political parties kick around at strategic times of the year such as the lead up to elections, after which our representatives (and prospective candidates) go missing till the next photo opportunity. They seem to have little appetite for the low profile hard work that the SHRA undertake. The Council Officers will always be associated with their past failures and must be dispirited to constantly have to explain them away to aggrieved residents. Shouldn’t they have produced and published a strategy by now of how they intend to take all these issues forward or did it pass me by.
That’s why I believe the creation of a Parish Council within the boundaries of the Harbour would be such a positive influence for a successful and harmonious future in this area. Such a Council would be sensitive and responsive to our needs and aspirations because that would be their focus. As its expertise and experience increased it could be expected to undertake more and more of the functions which have such an impact on our lives and are currently being neglected by the Borough Council. They would also have a mandate and statutory powers to become involved in and comment on outstanding developers planning applications. My own experience of a Town Council is one of low contributions and significant achievement, particularly in the provision of social facilities.
An example of an administration being disconnected from its employers (that’s us by the way) is the proposal by Council Officers to have waste recycling sites within the Harbour. Waste recycling sites are located in supermarket car parks for a reason. Primarily because they are remote from residential dwellings, and also because supermarkets employ staff who periodically clear away the accumulated debris! I don’t imagine anyone living on the Harbour wants to be serenaded by the clink of wine bottles dropping into bottle banks or watch the Asda plastic bags blowing down the road. Eastbourne Borough Council are failing to meet their waste recycling targets because they are either incompetent or not prepared to invest in an appropriate scheme or both. When I wrote to them in January 2002 asking why they had not introduced recycling boxes their reason was that this aspect was outside the contract with the current waste management contractor. They would have to wait until the appointment of a new contractor in April 2003. So who negotiated that contract! Its worth noting here that Mid-Sussex District Council have been operating a recycling box scheme for 10 years and a two box scheme for 7 years so its hardly rocket science. The recycling box scheme our Council eventually introduced is inadequate; it omits easily recyclable materials such as plastics and cardboard and is self limiting as only one type of box is supplied. What is needed is a multiple box system which can be extended over time to include a whole range of waste materials such as used batteries, metals, different types of packaging etc. This could have a real impact on the volume of waste going to landfill and could also have a beneficial effect on the Roselands Recycling site (which is a good example of why recycling facilities should not be located in residential areas, although I am told it is administered by East Sussex County Council not Eastbourne Borough Council) and others as we would have less waste to take there. A proactive Council would publish information on the economics of recycling and how the schemes self finance and details of the profits that are used to offset Council Tax. I recently had a visit from a Waste Recycling Officer employed by the Council who was essentially selling the concept of driving waste to recycling sites. Experience and research shows that the most effective method of achieving high rates of recycling domestic waste is door step collections, it also reduces vehicle movements. If Council Tax payers could see that such a scheme can be effective and could generate income they would be more inclined to accept and operate it.
Finally on the matter on anti-social behaviour, by youths and children not adults, I have noticed groups of young people in transit from Langney to the Harbour so the problem seems to originate from off-harbour families, which is reassuring in one respect and a concern in another. Do we want feral gangs roaming our streets? The presence of PCSOs and occasionally police is reassuring. |
||
|
On 8th September, South Harbour Resident Stewart Mitchell wrote to the Eastbourne Herald and copied Waterlines Having canvassed three times, for about an hour at a time,in Madeira Way South Harbour and its offshoots, for support for the creation of a Parish Council for Sovereign Harbour, I have been amazed at the positive responses I have received from the residents to whom I have talked. So far I have collected 57 signatures and have had only one refusal. What is so encouraging is the enthusiastic response I have had to my request. Many mention the Waterlines article and several have thanked me for taking the time to canvass support for what they see as a very necessary development. The pity is that we did not have a Parish/Community Council some time ago. Because a Council carries a legal standing, we would have been in a much stronger position to thwart the greed of developers and, more importantly, to ensure that Eastbourne Borough Council, which collects some £6 million from us annually, gave something back rather than ignoring the needs of Harbour residents. I shall continue to canvass. Join in -- it's fun!! |
||
|
On
1st September, Sovereign Ward's County Councillor wrote to Councillor
John Barnes, Chairman East Sussex Downs and Weald Primary Care Trust as
follows, and copied Waterlines : "Dear John The
temporary planning permission for the Doctor's Surgery in Barrier Reef
Way, North Sovereign Harbour expires in 2008. Since this has already been
extended a number of times, further approval maybe in question. More serious
still is the inadequacy of the present premises to do the job required
of a modern GP surgery. While all other areas of East Sussex see the development of Children Centres with their very wide range of excellent community services, my residents have to make to the a Doctor's Surgery operating out of a semi-detached house. When oh when are the PCT going to get on with it. Any planning application will take several months to process and therefore needs to be made now to ensure approval of both residents and the planners Early help with this issue would be greatly appreciated by both myself and thousands of Sovereign residents. Yours sincerely David
Elkin |
||
|
On 6th August, South Harbour Resident Stewart Mitchell wrote to the Eastbourne Herald and copied Waterlines Passing lightly over the obduracy of Eastbourne Borough Council in persisting in their attempts to get a Water Feature in the South Harbour, towards which they contribute nothing for its maintenance, I wish to focus on the issue of the vandalism that plagues this part of the Jewel in Eastbourne's Crown. Can anyone be surprised at this behaviour? Where are children expected to play? In
the South Harbour there is not a single Open/Recreation space for either
Children's Use or Youth and Adult Use. This,despite the adoption by the
Council of the 'Six Acre Standard' of the National Playing Fields Association. So, with at least 1500 dwellings in South Harbour and a population of at least 3000 there should be some 18 acres of Outdoor Play Space. And what do we have? NOTHING ! Small wonder then that we have a growing problem with vandalism. The kids have nowhere to play. Unfortunately matters will get worse. At present most of the families in the harbour have young children. In five to seven years time they will be marauding gangs unless something is done and done quickly. We desperately need play areas now and a Community Centre to enable youth clubs and the like to flourish and help young people to become part of our community. There is little sign or hope of any of these essentials coming into being. The
outlook is grim, grim, grim. |
||
|
On 5th August, a North Harbour resident, who supplied his name and address, but preferred to remain anonymous wrote to Waterlines "Council: An assembly of elected or nominated persons called together for consultation, deliberation, discussion and action.
Thank you SHRA for organising the meeting on 17 July to present for discussion the concept of a type of council for Sovereign Harbour to both represent the interests of Sovereign Harbour residents and to undertake an agreed programme of works or actions. It is a novel approach for a relatively small but discrete development/settlement (albeit capable of producing £6m Council Tax per annum). Your two speakers, both current Town Clerks, I thought fairly presented the advantages and disadvantages of the arrangements. I thought the possibilities were exciting given we could have the opportunity to vote in our own Council which would have statutory powers and could:
| ||