5th April 2012

Letter sent to SHRA by North Harbour resident Bob Stanborough

I would be interested to know SHRA members opinions, regarding enforcing the use of dog leads on the harbour. I have copied Sue Criddle (EBC) on this communication as I think it is apparent from various local commitee's that this is a major concern for most of us.

As a resident of Macquarie Quay, I constantly see dog owners allowing their pets to run free (off the lead), along the outer harbour walkway, with no regard or attention paid, to what their dogs are doing and on regular occasions the dogs do their 'business' lagging well behind the owners, who rarely turn to see what their pet has left behind.  

If owners were forced to keep their dogs on a lead, they would have no chance of missing 'the act' or excuse for not picking it up.  This would also serve to resolve the other issue of inconsiderate owners who allow their dogs to run up to others using the walkways, with total disregard for any potential fears or phobias (especially with young children).  

15th March 2012

Letter sent to SHRA by North Harbour resident Terry Langman.

Coming out of ASDA’s the other day, an elderly couple came and started talking to me. The lady was pushing the gentleman in a wheelchair. The lady asked me what it was like to live in the Harbour. My reply was that the double yellow lines on the roads around the harbour were for decoration only, because nobody takes any notice of them. People park where ever they want.   You cannot walk on the pavements around the harbour, as these are used as additional car parking facilities for residents, no thought for people in wheelchairs or even families with children in pushchairs.   When you walk around the boardwalk, be careful where you walk, as it is the worst place for dogs mess.

The lady replied that she had already noticed that. Eastbourne seemed the worst place in the U.K. for dogs mess, she said that she had to be very careful pushing the wheelchair as it gets all over the wheels, and had found that many of the ramps allowing them access to the pavements were usually blocked by parked vehicles and she had to go on the roads.  All in all, she thought that they were better off living in the Midlands – what a very sad thing for Eastbourne.

Surely it’s time that Eastbourne council started to do something about the parking on yellow lines, parking on pavements and dogs mess around the harbour.  Double yellow lines are no good unless you make sure that somebody is going to patrol the areas, and  parking on pavements should also be patrolled.   Dog bins are no good unless you have more responsible owners – Dogs should be kept on leads around the boardwalk so that the owners can see when their dogs do their business – not just let the dogs wander off and while they talk to their friends, their dog does their poo while nobody is looking – meanwhile when the responsible owner arrives home with an empty dog bag thinks – what a good boy – not knowing their cargo has been left steaming on the boardwalk.

Other than that – living on the harbour in good.

17th October 2011

Letter sent to SHRA by North Harbour resident Alan Grusd about the completion of the harbour development.

Dear Fellow-residents

I am very appreciative of what shra does for our community and how you fight for our rights. We have been living here for 9 years and have said from the start that we need a playground for children, a community centre and a playing field. However, I was perturbed on reading the article on the Completion of the Harbour Development in the latest Waterlines. The wording does not fill me with optimism. “ensuring that residents’ wishes are given due weight in future planning applications.” “must be the basis upon which any other development proposals are considered.” “agreed way forward.”  It sounds nice and positive, but I would bet that Carillion will agree to do the community things after they build the houses, years in the future. I, and I think most of the residents, would be far happier if it was firmly agreed by the ECB that Carillion build the community projects first.

Yours sincerely

Alan Grusd
St Lawrence Way

17th October 2011

Letter sent to SHRA by North Harbour resident Malcolm Rasala about the completion of the harbour development.

Dear SHRA,

Has Carillion applied for planning permission to build the 150 homes? Your 'Waterlines says "in any future planning applications"  If they have not, might they come to the conclusion that the financial return on this limited number of new homes is not worth the financial cost of building a community centre, public open spaces, children's playgrounds? Or are these being funded by the EBC? In essence what is the financial motivation for Carillion to do these things? Or might this all end up being wishful thinking given Carillion's refocused growth strategy (see last weeks Financial Times)?

Malcolm Rasala
Harbour Club

8th August 2011

Letter sent to SHRA by North Harbour resident Mike Grant about lack of cleanliness in the Harbour.

Dear Editor,

As a comparatively new resident to the North Harbour I enjoy living here, and the unique and beautiful environment. However I have concerns about the cleanliness of certain areas of the Harbour and its immediate environs and a lack of adequate litter picking by statutory bodies and land owners. I can cite various examples.

You are no doubt aware there is a significant problem of dog owners bagging up their pets' waste and dumping them on the beaches of the North Harbour and by walkways. Recently five bags were dumped at the end of the promenade by the corner with the outer harbour. Whilst there is no excuse for these irresponsible dog owners there is not a single litter or dog waste bin along the seafront so it is hardly surprising.

Further, in the eight months I have lived here I have not seen a single litter picker on the North Harbour beaches and sea front promenade. So are the local council or Environment Agency providing a litter picking service? After all town centre beaches are kept meticulously clean. Finally on the theme of dog waste the undeveloped land between the outer harbour and the sea, which I believe is owned by Premier Marinas there was a large number of dumped bags and no sign of cleaning last time I checked.

Pacific Drive has also been blighted by litter in recent months. This is hardly surprising since there is not a single general litter bin on it (and as an aside, there are virtually none along the Harbour walkways), and the council's contractor is scheduled to clean this road just once a month. Amazingly in early May when a rota day fell on a bank holiday Monday the cleaning was missed. A major Harbour road was therefore neglected for two months and it became a mess and hazard with broken glass on the road. This is an unacceptable service as a council taxpayer. I had to complain three times before the road was cleaned and now await promised improvements including some litter bins. Finally, the verges along the A259, Pevensey Bay Road and the roundabouts at the entrance to the Waterfront and retail park are often blighted by general litter and need more frequent cleaning by the council.

In conclusion, the key problem as I see it is a lack of cleaning infrastructure in the Harbour, such as litter bins and litter picking services. There are many statutory and private bodies with responsibility for the maintenance of the Harbour environment - Eastbourne Borough Council, the Environment Agency, Premier Marinas, other land owners and the management companies for the developments. It is not clear in many cases who should be cleaning up in which locations (for example the Harbour walkways, beaches and car parks) and cynically perhaps some bodies are happy to abrogate their responsibilities when concerned local residents to do the job for them or no one complains. Without the good will of volunteers the Harbour would be much dirtier.

Perhaps the SHRA could publish a full list of public areas in the Harbour, which body is responsible for maintenance and cleansing and perhaps their service standards and frequency. This would give concerned residents clarity on who to approach and contact details where problems exist.

Finally, whilst I have received some support from our MP, the local council's environmental health team who are seeking to identify and fine irresponsible dog owners, and a newly elected councillor, I have yet to find any person or organisation of influence, including I must say the SHRA, who are campaigning passionately and hard for cleanliness on a Harbour wide basis. So here is an opportunity for the SHRA to take a lead.

Yours faithfully

Mike Grant

Caroline Way

Response from SHRA Chairman Rick Runalls - click here...

7th August 2011

Letter sent to SHRA by North Harbour resident Alison Attwood about the future development concensus.

Rick, Jan and all SHRA Committee

I just wanted to say well done with the harbour consultation. It is great news that plans for the remaining undeveloped bits of the harbour are once again taking shape, and with a strong emphasis on community facilities. You have obviously worked very hard to achieve this and I really don't think you could have agreed a better outcome.

It's good to hear that the MP, councillors and leaders of both political parties are all in agreement. There's no mention of Carillion in the consultation and I just hope they will now play ball and help manage the harbour to its completion.

Thank you and well done to you all.

Alison Attwood

St Lawrence Way

8th March 2011

Letter sent to The Eastbourne Herald by South Harbour resident Elaine Levy about the Eastbourne Plan consultation.

I recently received a rather lovely glossy brochure entitled The Eastbourne Plan – a Summary brochure. This asks residents to comment on the Proposed Core Strategy 2006-2027 of the Council's vision for Eastbourne.

Seeking residents views is laudable until you look a little deeper and see that the document is misleading in the way it asks the questions and is aimed at getting the answers the Council require.

Sovereign Harbour area (Area 14 map ‘Community Led Neighbourhoods’) does not mention the proposed 150 additional houses planned. On other areas additional housing is identified. What is mentioned is ‘Delivery of community infrastructure, new employment development, and provision of usable open space. If you support the Council statement then you unknowingly agree to the additional housing resulting in a ‘change of land us’ therefore allowing continued residential  development across the whole area. Previous planning control on the Harbour makes this a fact, not speculation.

The brochure ask questions which may apply to one area but not another, therefore you may agree with one aspect and not another. Housing planned for one area may be fine but on another area totally wrong, so how can you answer correctly?

20 years ago, the original planning of the Harbour was for 2500 houses. Current housing built stands at approximately 3550, an increase of over a thousand and now a further 150 are planned on the small areas of land left. When will this stop? There are still none of the originally promised community facilities. No where for children to play or people to meet. No where for scouts, guides, W.I, a luncheon club and more. The building of the Doctors Surgery has only just commenced. The funding for this has been entirely private - not a penny has come from either the Council or the developers.

The council have now advised the residents that they cannot enforce provision of the social amenities, even if the additional housing planned takes place. Recent changes in zoning has joined together the Kingsmere Estate and the harbour, implying that the community facilities on Kingsmere are available to residents of the Harbour, thus reducing the need for facilities on the Harbour.

There is no physical way of getting from the Harbour on to Kingsmere without driving and children cannot even access the play areas. Originally, one of the reasons the harbour area was built was to encourage walking and cycling and reduce driving. Latterly, the Council suggested that a Polling station should be located in the Harbour as access to the nearest one located on Kingsmere was so difficult. It seems to me that the Council want this both ways.

Please look at these questions before you answer them and apply the questions to the areas where you live.

If we want Eastbourne to succeed as a vibrant place to live with plenty of employment opportunities, do not ignore your opportunity to voice your concerns.

Elaine Levy

Anguilla Close