It's Time for Some Payback
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Issue 51 www.shra.co.uk April, 2010 It’s Time for some payback It was very good to hear that Pacific Year Band D Band E Marina Drive has finally been adopted. Although we can understand the reason for the 2000 £851 £1,040 delay, the developers should never have 2001 £926 £1,131 £120 been allowed to put themselves so firmly 2002 £978 £1,196 £124 in the driving seat that they were able to dictate the timetable and cause so much 2003 £1,209 £1,478 £160 inconvenience to so many residents. 2004 £1,279 £1,563 £245 For far too long, harbour residents have 2005 £1,330 £1,625 £228 been used as a ‘cash cow’ by both local government and developers and received 2006 £1,388 £1,697 £221 virtually nothing in return. Most harbour 2007 £1,447 £1,769 £195 properties are in Council Tax ‘Band D’ or above, which means we pay above the 2008 £1,506 £1,841 £202 average for the town. We thought it was 2009 £1,561 £1,908 £221 about time we got some value for our 2010 £1,602 £1,959 £175 money, so we looked at what we have paid out over the past ten years; it makes Totals £14,077 £17,207 £1,891 very interesting reading. the list goes on. Even more galling, the Over the ten years, owners of ‘Band relatively high Council Taxes paid by D’ properties have each contributed harbour residents are used to subsidise over £14,000 to the councils’ coffers. other areas of the town. Added to that, For owners of Band E properties this the outrageous payments we have to increases to over £17,000 and for owners make to the Sovereign Harbour Trust of ‘Band F’ properties to over £20,000. help to subsidise the cost of sea defences Additionally, all will have made ‘donations’ for much of the surrounding area. to the Sovereign Harbour Trust of £1,891. It really is time that those who have been If you consider that there are about elected to represent us started to fight 4,000 ‘Band D equivillent’ properties on for our rights, instead of telling us that the harbour, we collectively paid about we are sufficiently wealthy to pay for our £6.25 million in the year 2009/2010. own community centre, or supporting That’s a lot of money and what have we hare-brained schemes to sell bricks for got in return? Almost nothing! To make one at £10 each. it worse, in the current financial year, this We are told that cash is tight and we will rise to about £6.4 million. must moderate our expectations, but Even the so called ‘deprived areas’ of the the Borough Council was still able to town have at least one community centre, find £90,000 to fund the ‘Councillors Re- a health centre, local shops, playing election Fund’, or Devolved Ward Budget, fields and parks, children’s play areas, as they prefer to call it. You might be Notice of AGM - See centre pages as surprised as we were to discover that You might also be surprised to know £2,500 of this years budget for Sovereign that £2,900 has been allocated for the Ward is to be spent on setting up and construction of an ‘outdoor gym’ on the promoting a new organisation, ‘The Kingsmere Estate, also as a result of a Harbour Community Association’. You survey of residents. might be equally surprised to discover Kingsmere residents are indeed that this has been done as a result of a fortunate to have sufficient public open survey of residents. We certainly have space on which to construct the gym, but no knowledge of any such survey, and that is something it has in abundance, our enquiries have so far failed to find unlike Sovereign Harbour. In fact, the anybody else who has any knowledge of estate has enough to warrant a grant of one. Please let us know if you were one £60,000 in 2005 for planting of public of the respondents, or how the survey areas, a grant of £230,000 in 2008 to was conducted. ‘Improve Green Open Spaces’ and also In our view, anybody who truly wanted in 2008, a share of £300,000 for new to get the opinion of harbour residents play equipment in local parks. would take advantage of the only This isn’t about jealousy, this isn’t about publication guaranteed to be delivered to sour grapes, this is about justice. We every harbour dwelling, Waterlines. We aren’t asking for special treatment, are puzzled, therefore, that no attempt although by now we’re certainly entitled was made to engage us, and no request to it; we just want what every other area was made to use our facilities, which we of Eastbourne takes for granted. would have gladly provided at no cost. More Residential Development? residential development. We would, therefore, like to remind you that, in recent meetings with the SHRA committee, the leader of Eastbourne Borough Council, and the leader of the opposition, both confirmed that it was council policy that there should be no further residential development on Sovereign Harbour. We are hearing ever stronger rumours The SHRA policy remains that the that we can soon expect to see a harbour has already been overdeveloped number of planning applications for the and any further development would remaining harbour development sites. seriously damage the already fragile It is inconceivable that these applications sustainability of the harbour community. will not include some element of The remaining development land offers ample opportunity for developers to that 30% of any residential development make a reasonable profit, so there is must be ‘affordable housing’ will further no justification for the return to the reduce profitability. Once the principle rampant greed that has characterised of ‘no more residential development’ the development so far. has been abandoned, the floodgates will The Borough Council has very be open and any lingering prospect of conveniently provided itself with a ‘Get the harbour becoming the development out of Jail Free Card’ by the cleverly that we all bought into will be gone conducted, consultation on the Local forever. Development Framework (LDF). By It’s totally unacceptable for Eastbourne putting in an option that included an Borough Council to support the apparently modest 150 extra homes argument that residential development on Sovereign Harbour, and allowing is the only way to fund the social residents of all other wards to vote on it, infrastructure that the developers were the council cleverly ticked the necessary so cynically allowed to omit from their box. However, the consultation was previous plans. It is also essential that, flawed; residents of Old Town, who having been so easily duped on two showed almost no interest in the previous occasions, that the council process, were given a second chance to should be doubly cautious in any make their views known. In order to negotiation. ensure a better turn out for the second event, leaflets were delivered to all Old After the refusal of the ‘Five Sites’ Town homes, thus skewing the result in applications, it seemed that Carillion favour of the council’s preferred option. was prepared to take residents views into consideration, but the subsequent All of the available harbour development discussion on the ‘Master Plan’ for land is owned by Carillion and past the final development of the harbour experience shows us that such a golden showed that its primary objective was to opportunity, so generously gifted by the secure the maximum further residential council, will be seized with glee. We development whilst providing the can also be certain that Carillion will, minimum community facilities in return. as before, conveniently ignore its own guidelines on community sustainability Both Carillion and the Borough Council published on its website. have committed to a full public consultation before proceeding with We will probably be told that the extra houses will allow the provision of much any plans, which we welcome. Having needed community facilities, but that been misled so often in the past, it is insults our intelligence. Anyone can see difficult to have any confidence in the that the construction of 150 houses will process, but we will wait and see what not generate sufficient profit to fund is provided. much more than a scout hut, let alone a However, it seems very likely that we community centre of sufficient capacity will soon have another battle on our to serve the harbour. The requirement hands. Unlocking the Trust In response to the serious concerns for a charity.” Despite receiving annual expressed by a number of our members, returns from the SHT and despite a the SHRA set up a small sub-group to complaint by the SHRA in 2006, the examine the background, history and Charity Commission insists it had no operation of the Sovereign Harbour Trust previous knowledge of this activity. (SHT), to which we are all contracted to The rules governing CICs state that pay an annual ‘Rentcharge’. the community that they are formed Because of the secrecy under which the to serve must be consulted, and must SHT has always operated, obtaining be represented on the board. As this information has been difficult, and it CIC was formed without consultation, has unfortunately been necessary to and without community representation, use Freedom of Information legislation the SHRA has asked the CIC Regulator to make progress. However, our to investigate the issues. The Charity understanding of the circumstances Commission has also been asked to that led to the creation of the SHT is delay transfer of the Trust Deed until now much greater, and it has become it, and the CIC Regulator, come to their apparent that organisations that should respective decisions.