A messy issue...

As a Littlehampton town councillor, I have had enquiries and opinions expressed on the subject, which have caused me to look into the topic on their behalf.

From the content, it appears there is an argument on both sides (even the “dog” was quoted in your Whispering Smith column), between those who believe it to be the owners’ task for disposal and some, also local council tax payers, who consider they have a right to a proper resource, other than their own dustbin.

Both factions point to the need for a widespread provision of appropriate arrangements, such as litter bins for disposal, as a public service. However, this simple remedy has been discontinued as a result of budget costs.

As others have done before me, I traversed the weary way through the various offices and departments responsible for highways, parks, open spaces, environmental health, sanitation, and even those developers who are engaged in manufacturing more dog-owning households, in the hope that I might find a lever for such a remedy.

Sadly, each of these offices recounted that the provision of bins was strictly beyond their means, concluding with the added, sympathetic advice that I should engage my arguments elsewhere.

Arun District Council even remarked that its inspectors had found no evidence of complaint.

It is remarkable that the council took the decision to withdraw the facility, because it was not a statutory mandate, just as the house building in Littlehampton was gaining momentum, and when that additional part of the community would be in need of the service.

If, until that point, the provision was seen to be a needful part of the precept, why were developers not required to include such equipment, as is the case with other street furniture items and their maintenance, at the point of planning consent?

Since that element of the council tax collected for the original stock is still within the budget, why should the same proportion of the ongoing increase in receipts not be made accountable for the support needed toward the well-being of the growing population?

Perhaps this reasoning is beyond the wit of our district council, but it does seem unreasonable to many Littlehampton residents that so much of their contributions are being spend on intrusive, predominantly visitor attractions.

Derek Hulmes

Kingfisher Drive

Wick