We have been consistent in our objections over many years to what we have always believed to be an inappropriate
overdevelopment of a narrow strip of land liable to flooding and with dangerous access points on to St Philip's and Astaire Avenue. This view has been expressed by more than 100 residents directly affected by the development in the form of
petitions spanning the last 12 years, irrespective of the final use of these bungalows.
We had to accept gracefully that eventually planning permission was granted on appeal for eight bungalows. That was already pushing the limits of what could be recommended within the Borough Plan. This new
application for an additional four bungalows, we believe, is totally unacceptable.
All residents (including those moving into the new
development) have a right to
privacy, space and security. All residents should not have to live in overcrowded and overdeveloped accommodation and should not have to face danger on access roads, junctions and pavements. This applies to all residents in the community without prejudice or discrimination.
Mr and Mrs K Mignot, Harding Avenue, Eastbourne

Regarding last week's article entitled 'Row over bungalows for disabled people' I am one of the local residents deeply
offended by the outrageous
accusation about our opposition to the development.
What is the real problem with this development? It is an
over-development of a limited site and it accesses one of the most dangerous points in St Philip's Avenue.
The councillors are undertaking a serious appraisal of the traffic flow in St Philip's Avenue, and until this is done, no further
development should go ahead. Please, let's not have innocent blood on our hands because
commercial gain is greater than human safety.
Robert Armstrong, Harding Avenue, Eastbourne

I was dismayed to read in the Herald last week that Cllr David Tutt is opposing aspects of the planning application by Chaseley Trust to provide
disabled bungalows at St Philip's Avenue and Astaire Avenue.
My wife and I are on the waiting list for one of these bungalows and it seems that the local 'anti' lobby has influenced his action for what is a ground-breaking and much-needed development on a piece of land which is too narrow for conventional
development. The traffic concerns are minimal and can easily be addressed, taking into account the very light traffic impact of the development.
I have just come from a progress and funding meeting at Chaseley where I was made aware of Cllr Tutt's opposition. As a Lib Dem member with a severely disabled wife I am particularly concerned at the councillors' lack of support for other disabled projects. I have already been in correspondence with Councillor Goodwin about the ongoing and abject lack of proper disabled toilet facilities at places such as the Wish Tower Restaurant and along the seafront generally.
I was already questioning my membership due to Lewes MP Norman Baker's continuing opposition to the much needed dualling of the A27 death-trap between Polegate and Lewes and even his opposition to the Falmer Community Stadium. These recent actions do little to change my mood.
I hope to receive a reassurance that Cllr Tutt is not seeking to prevent the very progressive and innovative development by Chaseley Trust from proceeding.
Roger Hudson, Spruce Close, Eastbourne