The meeting had been arranged by the Sovereign Harbour Residents' Association which is in favour of a new council to look after grassroots affairs in the area.

It took place ahead of a referendum on the issue, organised by the borough council. Voting forms have gone out this week to every household in the Harbour, and residents have until the end of the month to return their ballot.

The borough council is not bound by the result of the referendum, but a strong return and decisive majority in favour of a community council will make it difficult for it to stand in the way of its introduction.

Thursday's meeting was chaired by the editor of the Gazette and Herald, Peter Austin, and those present heard from a panel of speakers before the debate was opened up to the floor.

The case for a council was put by SHRA member Stewart Mitchell, one of the Harbour's original residents, and the man who encouraged the association to pursue the idea.

He pointed to the total lack of amenities such as a community centre and play areas for children.

Landowners Carillion had fobbed off his argument by pointing to the marina and beach as recreation areas.

Mr Mitchell drew attention to the fact that the new development of just 220 homes in Wartling Road was accompanied by a community centre provided by the developers, yet the Harbour had nothing.

The Harbour area contributed £6million in council tax to the borough council yet got a very poor return for its money.

A parish council would represent the needs of the area in fighting for a proper social infrastructure.

The argument against a community council was put by former borough councillor Bert Leggett, now a Harbour resident.

He believed there were three clear reasons for voting against – cost, the burdensome creation of another tier of government, and concerns about exactly what a council would do.

Harbour residents already paid a charge to the Sovereign Harbour Trust, and a community council would add a further cost.

The average precept levied by parish councils in East Sussex last year was £68.78.

The council would have between nine and 16 members, all of whom would be entitled to claim expenses.

While he conceded that the council would have a role in monitoring planning issues, it would have none of the tasks facing most parish councils, such as management of burial grounds and allotments.

Borough council leader Cllr David Tutt and his Tory opposition counterpart Cllr David Elkin both expressed their neutrality on the issue.

Cllr Tutt said residents should weigh up the advantages the move could bring, but also the cost.

MP Nigel Waterson gave his backing to a community council. He said the lack of community facilities was 'a disgrace', and had a community council been in place during the early development of the Harbour it could have fought this issue.

He believed a new council could manage open spaces, traffic calming and other matters and could help engender community spirit.

"If people like Carillion, the marina company, and the borough council want to ignore Sovereign Harbour Residents Association they can do so," he said.

"But a parish council would have a statutory right to be consulted".

Speakers from the audience were virtually unanimous in condemning Carillion's lack of investment in community facilities, and most saw a community council as a way of getting things done.

One resident said, "We have nothing for the kids, no community centre, no places for teenagers to go. We get nothing back for our £6million council tax. We need something to happen and a parish council may be able to do that."

A former resident of a Somerset village said the parish council there cost residents £20 a year but was successful in getting money spent on the village.

Another speaker with experience as a parish councillor in Scotland urged people not to be under the illusion that such a council would solve everything. They were effective in tackling parochial matters, but not much more.

Harbour borough councillor Susan Morris argued that a community council was unnecessary because the borough council was now effectively negotiating with Carillion.

Others were critical of the lack of community investment by Carillion, and Mr Waterson said the company had 'got away with murder'.

He said he would be meeting with the company shortly and would be insisting that their future discussions about the role of the remaining vacant land must include Sovereign Harbour Residents' Association.

Stuart Mitchell expressed concern that Carillion would try to make a case for flats on land near the Martello Tower earmarked for a hotel, but Cllr Tutt insisted that the council would not permit that to happen.