Seafront shelters letters special

Was somebody on drugs?

WHAT a load of tosh! No wonder these designs are hidden on the internet away from the majority of Bexhillians.

It looks like either the architects or the person who gave them the brief were on LSD at the time.

What is wrong with refurbishing the existing elegant Edwardian shelters with modern materials and even adding new ones to the same design?

Tony Ashby

Lychgates Close, Bexhill-on-Sea

Objecting to these prize designs

FOLLOWING the publishing of the 10 short-listed designs for shelters and a kiosk in the Bexhill Observer on October 23, many of your readers have expressed their dismay that any of these designs might appear on our much-loved seafront in the near future.

It needn't happen.

There will be a meeting of Rother District' Council's jury panel in about 10 days' time, to decide which of the architects has submitted the winning design and to award a prize of 1,000 for each of the 10 short-listed entries plus a total of 22,000 for the winning entry.

But the winning design only wins the competition.

It doesn't necessarily have to be built on our seafront.

The Rother District Council brief for the RIBA competition is quite clear on the conditions for winning the major prize. It states that:

"In serving the best interest of the district, Rother District Council will reserve the right not to proceed beyond the competition stage although the architect who has the winning entry will receive a prize.

"Should Rother District Council choose not to proceed with commissioning the project, the authors of the winning designs will (still) receive a (reduced) total winner's prize of 4,000."

In other words, if the designs are either of an unsuitable style for Bexhill seafront, unfit for the purpose of sheltering people from the wind, rain or sun, or just disliked by the residents of the district. Rother District Council is not committed to actually using the winning designs.

It should just award the prize to the competition winner and then commission a new design, reflecting the character and heritage of Bexhill, instead of trying to emulate Las Vegas or Disneyland.

The designs may still be viewed on the internet '“ search on "Next Wave Home Page".

It is in your hands! Your opinions CAN make a difference! If, for whatever reason, you would be unhappy to see any of these designs on your seafront, please let Rother District Council know what you think about these designs, by contacting, as quickly as possible, and preferably by next Friday, November 20:

Derek Stevens, chief executive, Rother District Council '“ by letter addressed to Bexhill Town Hall, TN39 3JX or by E-mail to [email protected]

You may also wish to send copies to The Editor, Bexhill Observer: by letter to 18, Sackville Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex, TN39 3JL or by E-mail to [email protected]

Ron Storkey

Chairman,

SOS Save our Seafront.

De La Warr Road, Bexhill

Survey is a total farce

IN the November 6 issue of the Observer you published a straw poll entitled Your Views On The Proposed Seafront Shelters.

One really doesn't want to criticise trainee journalists but they obviously forgot who or what they should be interviewing, and we got an extraordinary spread of interviewees covering St Leonards, Hastings and even Eastbourne!

It is totally irrelevant when a Hastings resident says that the proposed so-called shelters 'look funky'! Nobody wants to know what I (a Bexhill resident) think of Hastings or vice versa.

However, this survey does raise (inadvertently) a very serious point and that is comments from 'non-eligible' participants.

May I elaborate? Those Bexhill residents who have chased the complicated 'treasure hunt' devised by Riba will know that the 'prize' is a form entitled Your Chance To Comment.

However, this is an anonymous form, having no address box for you to fill in. This leaves the returns absolutely wide open for anybody from St Leonards, Hastings and Eastbourne to pack the ballot with any vote they want.

In short, the survey is a total farce and wide open to producing the same results '“ and by the very same methods '“ recently shown in Afghanistan.

Further, the time provided for submission (Leeds by Tuesday, November 10) is totally inadequate for an elderly town even to properly discuss the proposals.

However, it has enabled a local quantity surveyor to show that this Riba exercise is so flawed that they cannot even carry out their own brief. Thus, 'the shelters should provide protection from rain, sun and from winds from different directions'. This they obviously do not do and they are obviously 'not fit for purpose'.

A P Hamilton

Southcourt Avenue, Bexhill

More money than sense

Surely it is indicative of the mind set of Rother councillors that they have fallen for the oldest trick in the book in regard to the seafront shelters.

Their homes must be full of unwanted and unnecessary items bought because they could not resist the 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent savings they could make when they did not really need the items at all.

To spend in excess of 4m of council taxpayers' money simply to secure a 1m carrot dangled by the Next Wave quango simply illustrates their total inability to get their priorities right.

A much smaller sum than the 4m they will now spend would have secured all the upgrading that the seafront needs and would have, I am sure, more than satisfied the vast majority of Bexhill residents. Perhaps the councillors should receive some lessons in money management, particularly when that money is not their own.

Roy Steadman

St John's Drive, Westham

Architects haven't a clue

Once again we are presented with awful ideas concerning our seafront.

Are these architects never invited to Bexhill so that they can see the sort of town we live in, or do they just assume that because we are situated by the sea we are an amusement arcade and candy floss type of place?

Our seafront is lovely, and while I accept that the shelters do need some refurbishment, they are totally in keeping with the area.

If they do need to be replaced, can we not find architects who can design elegant structures in keeping with our seafront? I've no doubt we are paying exorbitant fees.

I, with my late husband, and like most other seafront dwellers, bought this flat so that we could see the sea, not to look at ugly structures that look as if they have come from outer space. It looks quite possible from some of the designs that sea views in some areas would be obstructed by these monstrosities.

The majority of shelters and kiosks would be more at home in Disneyland, and why they should be lit up at night is beyond me (think of the environment) when we have perfectly good street lighting.

Has anyone given a thought to the people who live on the seafront?

Why the council thinks it is a good investment to spend 4m of our money to get 1m from Cabe I don't understand, especially as the majority of people don't like their ideas. It doesn't sound like good housekeeping to me. Remember, we are the taxpayers and the voters.

Pat Clements

West Parade, Bexhill-on-Sea

A curious coincidence

HOW odd that in last week's Bexhill Observer the only two people with anything remotely good to say about these proposals both used exactly the same word '“ 'funky' '“ to describe the designs in question.

Were these individuals, I wonder, in league with each other and, perhaps of more relevance, did either of them have any idea of the provenance of this odd and controversial word?

Without wishing to unduly alarm the more genteel and nervous elements among your readership, it is now agreed by leading scholars of the subject that this word usage has its origins in the sordid and dangerous depths of the American underworld, having wafted up, as it were, from one of the darker cellars of sexual depravity.

All well and good, we may perhaps allow, in the privacy of some of our more liberated homes, but is this really the contaminated mainspring of inspiration that Councillor Maynard and his close-cabinet cronies at Town Hall Square wish to draw upon for their makeover of the elegant and public space of our much-loved promenade?

Call me a prude if you like, but I would have thought that a clean, uplifting and sweetsmelling English model was required rather than some illegal and degenerate American import.

Neville Brand

CoIlington Rise, Little Common

Lobby your councillors

'PUBLIC opinion is being sought' began the article in this newspaper with regard to the competition to judge new shelters for Bexhill seafront.

This is obviously another ploy by Rother to appear to be consulting. The online exhibition, as Jackie Bialeska has already pointed out, excludes a large number of the council taxpayers of Bexhill who do not have access to a computer. It also runs only for a short two weeks.

You can of course get hold of a response form at the Community Help Point but this then needs to be posted to Riba. No consideration was made for the postal strike.

It is more than likely that one of these designs will be chosen, no matter what the public response.

This is not a consultation but a farce. The Lib Dem councillors on Rother have consistently asked for real, not cynical, consultation on the 5m changes to the seafront. Their proposals have been consistently turned down.

However, every resident in Bexhill is represented by two democratically-elected district councillors. You can write to them, knock on their doors, telephone them or, if you have a computer, e-mail them and tell them what you think! Ask them what they think! Better still, take your two letters to the town hall and ask for them to be delivered direct to your councillors. A full list of councillors can be found on www.rother.gov.uk or phone 01424 787000 to ask for their contact details.

Mary Varrall (Lib Dem parliamentary spokesman)

Cllr Sue Prochak (Lib Dem group leader)

Cllr Stuart Wood (Lib Dem Old Town)

Cllr Frances Winterborn (Lib Dem Old Town)

Cllr Martyn Forster (Lib Dem St Michaels)

Hold referendum for decision to be made

WHEN I opened my newspaper I had to do a double check on the date. Surely it couldn't be April Fool's Day?

But that's what the designs for the new seafront shelters brought to mind. Are the architects really serious in believing that any of these shelters are suitable for our town?

Personally, I have no desire to sit in what is essentially a drainpipe or, indeed, in any of the other monstrosities .

When will the powers-that-be realise that Bexhill is not, nor ever has been, a resort '“ it is a small, residential, seaside town and therefore it's about time they listened to what the townspeople want for their town.

First of all we had the ruination of Devonshire Square; now it seems we are going to be forced to sit on very uncomfortable seats under ugly shelters on our once-attractive seafront.

These shelters do not go with the architecture along the seafront where, with the exception of the Pavilion, most of the buildings are Victorian or Edwardian.

Instead of wasting the town's money on "improvements" decided by the council '“ which is, after all, chaired by someone who doesn't even live in the town '“ let us have a referendum and allow the residents of Bexhill to decide how their town should look.

Christine Hamilton

Southcourt Avenue, Bexhill-on-Sea