Your letters - September 12

Doomed venture

I AM increasingly concerned by the Rother District Council proposal to develop six underground retail units at the rear of the Colonnade.

Mr Leonard, director of services, is reported to have stated that the annual loss of 150,000 interest on the 3.5M to be invested from council reserves in the seafront "Next Wave" proposals would be recouped in rent from such units; an average of 25,000 from each unit.

The Colonnade retail units are by far the most costly element of these proposals. I cannot understand why ostensibly sensible officers and members entrusted to handle our affairs have rushed this proposal through committee stages without benefit of detailed construction estimates, evidence of existing unfulfilled demand, a definitive business plan and, worst of all, without prior consultation with us, the residents, who have an acknowledged deep interest in all matters affecting our seafront.

My quantity surveying experience informs me that the cost of constructing a structure requiring extensive excavation, waterproofing, insulation and ventilation, combined with the disruption caused by the absence of normal road access, would be enormous.

My commercial experience - and common sense - informs me that given these factors, in conjunction with the isolated location and the south westerly adverse weather conditions which prevail for many months of the year, this retail venture is doomed to commercial failure.

Fortunately, these proposals remain to be ratified by an early meeting of the full council.

It seems to me that the council is proposing to act in the capacity of quasi-developer in this matter, but I do not know whether investment in this risky, highly speculative venture falls within the scope of the council's remit as a local authority.

I do know, however, that were I a councillor required to vote my assent to such investment, I would vote very prudently indeed in the knowledge that, in the event of failure, I could be held personally liable for a share of the losses incurred if such investment was ultimately adjudged to be misuse of council funds.

Perhaps common sense may yet prevail? There is still time!

J. HODSON

Cooden Sea Road

Closed Doors

I REFER to Mr. Starnes' letter "Open Mind" which you published on September 5.

Mr. Starnes was chairman of the Rother District Council Seafront Strategy Working Group at its meeting on September 5, 2007. At that meeting landscaping proposals for West Parade, now incorporated into the widely criticised "Next Wave" project, were discussed. It was suggested at that meeting that there might be merit in undertaking consultation with Bexhill residents. Under Mr. Starnes' chairmanship it was decided that no such consultation was warranted.

Now, in 2008, the council has very generously agreed to get Bexhill's views on the proposal at an exhibition to be held in mid-October. That will of course be two weeks after the council will have taken its decision!

Only after considerable pressure by residents has it now been reluctantly agreed that a presentation of the proposal will be made at the next meeting of the Town Forum on September 23.

On the home page of the council's web site, under the impressive heading of "Council and Democracy" the following statement appears:

"The Council welcomes public participation in decision making and is keen to improve upon its engagement with the various communities it serves"

I mention all the above points with particular reference to Mr. Starnes' letter of September 5 in which he expresses his "sadness that council business is conducted through the letter pages of the local paper".

What Mr. Starnes clearly resents is the fact that, before its disclosure was forced into the open, the "Next Wave" proposal was on course to be imposed on us all by one of the lobbying groups of 10 to 20 people of whom he complains. Only this time the group comprises officers, some councillors and representatives of external agencies. So that's alright then - all groups are equal but some are more equal than others! The implication of his expressed "sadness" is that he would much rather these things were dealt with behind the closed doors of the council.

Mr. Starnes makes many references to external grants but not one to the 4.1m of local taxpayers' money, our money, which is also required to fund this project. This makes his contempt for the electorate even more telling.

Apparently the rules of the game have now changed and residents and taxpayers are here to support the needs of councillors and there was I thinking it was supposed to be the other way round!

All the rhetoric in Mr. Starnes' letter contained not one jot of evidence as to how exactly the "Next Wave" proposal will aid Bexhill's regeneration.

Perhaps Mr. Starnes has not been with us long enough yet to value what he has here but I for one would prefer to rely on the judgement of Mr. Earl as to the best interests of Bexhill. He is to be congratulated for being the first to point out publicly that this particular emperor has no clothes!

Those who oppose the "Next Wave" proposal do not say "Let's do nothing". They say "Let's do what residents and taxpayers think is necessary".

But of course the council would then have to find out what this was. As no provision for this has been made by the council it will just have to continue reading the Bexhill Observer to find out, however sad that makes Mr. Starnes!

JOHN LEE

Southcourt Avenue

Basic needs

BEFORE any costly 'improvements' are made to Bexhill's seafront, should we not be looking at the basic needs of the town.

First of all repair, or replace with asphalt, the pavements throughout the town. The existing ones are highly dangerous.

Open up the toilets which have been closed.

A Tourist Information Centre in Bexhill is most essential to residents and visitors alike.

And, cannot Devonshire Square be opened up again for temporary car parking for customers using the post office. With many sub-post offices now closed it means more people have to go to the main post office and, with car parking in Bexhill at a premium, it surely makes sense to re-open Devonshire Square, which is very much under-used.

SHEILA & RAY CHILD

Turkey Road

No asset

RE - the proposed seafront refurbishment and Colonnade development, how exactly does RDC justify the costs for these projects? 5.1 million, with 100,000 each for two communications officers! No doubt those endorsing this expenditure will be able to tell me and all other residents the financial benefits that it will bring?

This smacks of the Devonshire 'piazza' debacle - a lot of money spent but hardly an asset to the town in its present form, I'd say; had a wider scheme - including access to the station and Town Hall Square from that part of the town - been developed then maybe it would have enhanced things better.

The Colonnade scheme is particularly worrying - as others have already said, the town centre has many empty shops and as for having a restaurant I would say that Bexhill has more than its fair share of restaurants offering a wide variety of cuisine. Shouldn't our council be looking at ways and means of attracting (long-term) retail businesses, i.e. by offering reduced rates, or set-up grants, into these vacant spaces first? I note that the old Courts building still remains empty - more than a year on?

M. J. CHRISTIE

Reginald Road

Over optimistic

I MUST disagree with the council officer's reports in the Observer last week about the seafront modernisation - "The public do not understand".

We, the local ratepayers, understand only too well. 1,000 of them (99 per cent of the total) wrote letters in favour of a traditional look and against the 4million spend. But these letters were dismissed as only about "seagulls" and "pavements". We were also accused of pre-empting the process. However, what we hoped was that the letters would help the new, expensive designers to give us what we want for our money before even more thousands were squandered.

In their reports the council officers keep coming up with the same old, hackneyed phrases - "Quality of Life", "Catalyst for Regeneration", "evening economy" - phrases passed down from the government to indoctrinate them. They also play with semantics and obfuscation.

They say "no Edwardian shelters will go" but the truth is that all the shelters west of the Colonnade will go, the benches will go, so too the Sovereign Light, Kay's Kiosk, the wishing well, the sundial and 1/3rd of the putting green will be under concrete. An addition will be "Public Art" - two huge stone boulders. The officers are alarmingly optimistic in that the new shop rents will cover the costs of construction. What? In this economic climate? They describe "a honey pot of restaurants".

This "council speak" is disturbingly reminiscent of that "hub of activity" - "Gubby Square", the "Spirit of Place" - now rusty lampposts and empty shops, and the much vaunted new flats De La Warr Heights - the "Gateway to Bexhill" - now mouldering, unloved and unsold. How many grand plans have come to naught?

The newest ideas come with a possible grant but with ties. Our council says we are "competing with other seaside towns" - but why?

We should not run in a panic with the others like Gadarene swine rushing towards goodness knows what. We should produce plans that are suitable for Bexhill, a very special town. It certainly needs a big facelift and certainly needs to spend some money, but it shouldn't lose its unique character. In Bexhill we should "Dare to be Different".

JACKY BIALESKA

Bexhill

Sexy fun

WHY are our local councillors so obsessed with the seafront project when there are so many more pressing issues for them to consider? As a prime example, have they completely given up on the town centre problems?

I can see what fun it must be to dabble with a "sexy" item (like the seafront) rather than struggle with the difficult, but boring, town centre, but someone at the council should be banging heads together and telling people to forget the side issues and concentrate on essentials.

And when those fundamental matters are properly and permanently sorted, then by all means have some fun with the frilly bits on the side.

And how convenient in present circumstances to dismiss any opposition to their plans is the result of blind ignorance! Is Admiral Nelson (and his famous telescope) once more the inspiration for our council?

JOHN BARTLETT

Gillham Wood Road

Better spent

IS Cllr Maynard aware of the meaning of the word "unique" as he seems to wish to turn Bexhill into any old seaside town. Surely the regeneration money could in some cases be spent in the town.

For instance:

1. The pavements need attention (Bexhillians are known to walk with heads down for obvious reasons).

2. Some money could also be used to make the shop fronts more attractive.

3. Make some concessions to the business tax to encourage interesting specialist shops to open in the empty premises.

4. The flowers on the front are always beautiful and a credit to the Parks Department and the suggestion of a few palms could be implemented.

Both visitors and residents like to browse around shops but there would be little browsing around shops on our windy seafront in winter in the Colonnade.

Leave our putting green and benches alone!

J. WELCH

Ellerslie Lane

Too late

QUOTE from the leader of the council in the Observer, Friday, September 8: "A Public Exhibition of the "Next Wave" is to be held on October 16, 17, and 18 to give us feedback on the proposals."

Why then, is Rother D.C. voting to spend the 4.1 million of our money, on September 29?

GILLIAN A. DULY

Newlands Avenue

HAVING read the response to my letter from Councillor Starnes, as you would expect I felt it was worthy of a response.

During my adult life I have had the pleasure of serving the people of Bexhill in many capacities, all of which I considered an honour. To date I have tried to serve with integrity, humility and with an open mind, it is my opinion that good leadership is to listen and learn before making your making your judgements.

However it seems that there are other ways, that is, to get elected and then dictate what is good for everyone else, to stifle debate and to ridicule and threaten those who have a different point of view. Now I am not accusing Cllr Starnes of this type of behaviour for I am sure he has a completely open mind on the way forward for the whole of Rother and in particular Bexhill-on-Sea.

Cllr Starnes was quite correct, I did sign up to the corporate plan with all its many facets, hopes and ambitions for Rother, because I welcomed many of the proposals, however I cannot remember ever having seen a plan to develop the Colonnade with six retail outlets.

I remember the discussion documents produced by Tim Gale, I also recall a major scheme for the Marina, which would was worthy of putting to the people of Bexhill for discussion.

Councillor Starnes mentions in his letter the expertise within the regeneration department; would he like to expand on this, because unless the situation has changed, why then did we always employ outside expert consultants on Town Centre plans and retail schemes?

I suppose it would be considered close to treason to question the wisdom of some of our achievements and missed opportunities, like why after huffing and puffing about the Grand Hotel site for years, nothing has been done, like why after years of endless talk and representation did we get nothing from the Task Force, was it because we said no to a hotel on the putting green, or was it because we are still waiting for the link road?

All I hope is when and if North Bexhill expansion happens, we fight and fight hard, on bringing employment opportunities for future generations, but that will be for the non-elected policy-makers and maybe the elected members to decide.

I have been accused of being against change, an incorrect accusation. All I want is proper debate on change, it is our town, please don't be so arrogant as to tell us what is good for us without debate, please seek the mandate from the electorate, and please stop kidding yourselves that we the public have no right to an opinion.

Successive administrations have presided over the slow death and decay of nearly all town centres because of government interference and the sucking up to big business with out-of-town retail parks.

What on earth makes Rother District Council think that building these unwanted shops is going to kick start our economy?

Even Seaspace with all its millions, I believe, has failed to lift one ward out of poverty. Local government interference in Eastbourne has cost the tax payer a fortune with the cock-up over the parking, but, again, never mind it's only tax payers' money.

If it's such a good idea, why not see if any commercial enterprise would be interested in buying and developing it.

I hope that I will always have the respect for another person's point of view, the wisdom to consider I may not be right. All I am asking the people in power, whether elected or not, is to consider the wishes of the people who put them there, and pay for them, it is a position of great trust and responsibility, please do not take us for idiots and treat us with contempt, it is our town first and foremost and our views must be valued.

Below are a couple of the questions I sent to "all councillors" for their consideration.

1 Has a business plan linked with any market research been carried out?

2 Has a need for more retail units been established anywhere in Bexhill let alone the seafront?

3 Do the council propose to pay themselves business rates if these shops stand empty and if so, with whose money?

4 Good management costs money, bad management costs even more.

Stuart Earl

Bexhill

...But shops are closing down

THE latest proposals for this area and the Colonnade are the third lot in the last few years - how much more of our money is the council going to waste on ridiculous proposals?

I returned to Bexhill 15 years ago having lived in St Leonards most of my married life. I particularly wanted to live on West Parade as I like the area (my flat is on corner of West Parade and Park Avenue right by the Clock Tower).

It would be quite absurd to build more shops or cafes in the Colonnade given the number of shops now closed in the town and the empty cafe in the new horrible De La Warr Heights flats.

We like the West Parade and its furniture as it is, but it sorely needs refurbishment. We like the present wooden seats, with backs, facing the sea. The commemorations are interesting and proof of how much people like the West Parade as it is. To put stainless steel shelters and benches is ridiculous, how uncomfortable would they be not to mention ugly.

Why cannot the council appreciate that Bexhill is different to other modern seaside resorts, and make the best of the present architecture and make a feature of it in the tourist advertisements - if there are ever any advertisements these days.

To put steps where there is at present a slope is against the need to cater for disabled - and I am one.

The council should spend money on providing the Rowing Club with better facilities, and providing a beginners skateboard area for the youngsters - I suggest on the east lawn of Egerton Park, so that they do not use the terrace of the De La Warr Pavilion. And that is another completely unacceptable place, the terrace needs the glass screen replacing again (it was put there because it was badly needed, the terrace looked pathetic on the Bank Holiday Saturday afternoon. The blanked out windows, no tables and chairs with gay sunshades, just a small ice cream and soft drinks stall with a plain cream coloured sunshade, no flowers round the edge of the terrace, it just looked like the outside of a factory.

We badly need a crossing place by the Clock Tower from Park Avenue to the sea front, just a small island in the centre of the road would be sufficient. I see (and use it myself) so many people with children and wheelchairs etc struggling to get across the road in between the fast traffic there.

M. R. COOKE (Mrs)

Park Avenue

Why does the council think it's isolated from market forces?

ON behalf of S.O.S. Save Our Seafront I must respond to Cllr Starnes' letter last week (September 5) in which he launched a strong attack against former councillor and Bexhill mayor Mr Stuart Earl for daring to air his views on your page. Mr Earl's present stance, like that of S.O.S., is based on what he is currently hearing and seeing in the "Next Wave" proposals.

Mr Earl's comments show a high degree of common sense, a commodity which many feel has been sadly lacking when putting together the latest proposals for "regeneration" on our seafront.

Indeed, if the residents felt confident that common sense would be allowed to prevail, opposition would evaporate away on the next tide! However, they don't. The highly paid consultants and government quangos who come to the town to "regenerate" us arrive with preconceived ideas of what every seaside town should be. Invariably they remark, "The seafront is the jewel in Bexhill's crown" - and then advance expensive ideas on how to change it.

Cllr Starnes complains about "too many lobbying groups of 10-20 people that stop progress and as a result nothing happens". (Nothing happens, Cllr Starnes, when the council persists in putting forward proposals that don't make good sense!) A group so small would have little or no impact. Perhaps we can jog his memory, as he was there himself as an observer, that between 200 and 300 people attended the inaugural meeting of S.O.S. at the Victoria Hall in 2004 and that this

initial support swelled and swelled until a total of twelve thousand people had signed our petitions.

If the council's ideas had been right in the first place, perhaps there would only have been 10-20 dissenters!

If the ideas and methods of funding were correct at this present time, the tide of opposition would not be rising again. It beggars belief that Cllr Starnes is advocating that we turn the proven business principle of "demand" creating "supply" on its head, and start off with the "supply" (in this case 2.3 million to create just six single-storey underground retail units in the Colonnade - nearly 400,000 each) and then sit back and wait for the "demand" to happen. You can't force people to support these outlets and there are so many negative aspects to the viability and desirability of this project, which have been well described in previous weeks in the Observer and by some brave councillors in the council chamber.

Even the best-laid plans by experienced commercial developers can fail if they misread the market - you have only to look at the depressingly empty unsold and untenanted flats and retail units at De La Warr Heights. If a developer makes this error, then it's a pity, but it would have been his own choice to risk his money. If the councillors were to make the same error, with our money, our Capital Reserves, it would be a financial tragedy. Is it the "open-mindedness" Cllr Starnes advises, or is it gross foolishness, to risk 4.1 million of our money just to grab the possibility of a 1 million grant?

Why does the council think it is insulated from current market forces?

As our council seems bent on risking such a tragedy, Cllr Starnes and others should not be surprised to be on the end of stiff opposition. Of course things need doing in Bexhill. Far from being against change, S.O.S. is longing to see some sensible, sustainable and satisfying regeneration and, of course, enough common sense to implement it.

JEAN BISHOP

Chairman

S.O.S. Save Our Seafront

Over the cliff

TRUE waste might be defined as "The spending 4.1 millions of taxpayers' money on the unwanted and unnecessary", but it can be even better defined as " Watching a bus, laden with councillors,going over a cliff top, with three empty seats."

Derek Duly

Newlands Avenue