The SHRA has spent four years working to improve the harbour environment, so I am surprised and disappointed that Mr Roff could believe that we would withdraw from important discussions on such trivial grounds.
When the negotiations started they were truly inclusive and involved EBC officers and members of both political groups. It was particularly reassuring to see the cross-party accord leading to a policy of no further residential development on the Harbour. As a non-party political organisation SHRA valued the united front and its significance in negotiations with the land owner.
However, SHRA has now been excluded from important meetings where critical issues were discussed and agreed. Additionally, Cllr Elkin, our county councillor, the Conservative representative on the group was also barred, putting the process onto a party-political footing. If SHRA had stayed in as a token resident group, not only would it have been rendered ineffective, but would allow others comfort by claiming resident participation, giving credibility to a flawed process.
Recent events have badly shaken our trust, but we hope that the EBC team can return its focus on providing what Harbour residents want and need and, if the process delivers this, they will have our gratitude. However, our commitment to residents' interests remains firm, and we will continue to promote them by any effective means at our disposal.
Rick Runalls, Charman, Sovereign Harbour Residents' Association, Bermuda Place, Eastbourne

What a relief to read in the Herald of August 1 that representatives of the SHRA would no longer to be involved in any future negotiations with Carillion. It is very unfortunate but over the last
couple of years I have seen the clear waters of dialogue muddied by the interference of this group. Associations of this nature should be encouraged to give suggestions, aiding the way forward in developing this wonderful Marina, and leaving the politics to those who were elected to speak on our behalf. These individuals can be
democratically removed in due cause, if the electorate so desire.
From his unhappy comments, it would seem that Mr Weeks feels disenfranchised. Perhaps he should stand for council at the earliest election I believe this to be May or June next year?
A Mackenzie-Smith, St Lawrence Mews

I've been a resident of Sovereign Harbour since 2001 and a member of the Residents' Association for a number of those years.
This year I chose not to renew my
membership as I was disappointed by the direction the SHRA was taking.
The regular communications distributed by the SHRA to residents and the
frequent letters and comments in articles from members of its committee
(particularly from Ian Weeks) have become increasingly politicised.
It concerns me to read headlines like 'Harbour residents slam talks' (Herald, last week) and comments from Mr Weeks like 'the SHRA no longer sees any value in .... what has become a flawed and
undemocratic process'.
It feels very much like Mr Weeks has
forgotten that the councillors
representing the harbour are the only people elected as a result of an election open to all residents listed on the
electoral roll, as opposed to a committee 'elected' in a members-only meeting once a year. As such, it alarms me that he repeatedly chooses to express his views and possibly those of his members as if they represent those of the wider
population of harbour residents.
For the record, whilst he may be right to say that many residents want to see a community council established, I can
confirm that many of us consider that would simply add an extra layer of costs with no major benefits arising. The case for such a body has certainly not been made convincingly enough to make it appropriate to assume general support exists from harbour residents.
Alan Carroll, Sovereign Harbour North (full address supplied)