On three fronts local residents are fuming with their borough councillors.

I hear the SHRA (Residents Association) have pulled out of talks about the future of the remaining undeveloped sites. This is terrible news. But it seems they have good reason to do so, as the council has authorised private meetings that excluded them.

You can't be part of a working group, and then not be invited to meetings!

This is going to be a key test of David Tutt's leadership. In the Herald on Friday he says that local people say the harbour has "…too many flats in the area and that they want improved amenities such as a community centre, play areas and open public space and that is what the council is fighting for."

Quite right too. In 2006, at my instigation while I was council leader, and supported by David Tutt, who was then opposition leader, council policy was changed to cease support for more residential development, and instead give priority to community development.

SHRA were key to this as the voice of the residents. So why are they being kept out of the loop now?

There may be meetings when the SHRA cannot usefully contribute if they are technical planning meetings – but if the council isn't trying to keep things from them, why hold them in secret? Totally unnecessary.

It might be convenient in the short term for the council, but the residents of that area have shown in the past what a powerful fighting force they can become when motivated, and therefore a breakdown of communication now won't help the council in the long run.

I went out fishing from the harbour on a mate's boat last week, and I was reminded what an amazing part of town this is. It's absolutely vital that this landmark development in the history of Eastbourne gets the facilities the residents need and demand. That way there will be pride in the area, and the overall offer of Eastbourne will be massively enhanced, to all our benefit.


BUT that's not all, there are rumours of a hotel being put on one of the commercial areas (close to where the big B&Q controversy was a few years ago). That area is supposed to be for commercial development. Eastbourne has very few sites where newer and small/medium enterprises can locate, and needs to use all it's got to encourage these businesses to stay local to help the local economy. To simply allow the area to have a bog standard hotel that adds very little to the local economy would be totally out of order.


AND there's more! The Herald reports that local councillors are to spend £10,000 on 'beautifying' the area!

This is a special pot of money called the 'councillors re-election fund' that councillors can spend how they want, and then bang on in their political literature about what good councillors they are as they got this particular project sorted. (OK, it's not really called that, but it might as well be).

By the way there's nothing wrong with spending money on more trees, but the point is this money should be spent how local people (whose money it is) want to spend it, not at the whim of councillors. I'm told there was no consultation on this at all.

A much better use of this £90,000 (£10,000 per ward for all nine wards), would be to put it in the airbourne budget and make it a free show as it has been for 15 years.


AND finally… I never thought I'd say this, but 'Cirque Surreal' at Princes Park all this week, is a very good show!

Have a great week…