‘Ill-conceived plan must be rejected’

But it isn’t, and John Baldwin is absolutely right to register his concern (Gazette letters, September 29).

There are a number of perfectly valid reasons why this ill-conceived application must be rejected or, at the very least, amended by Arun District Council.

If approved, the present proposal would drastically reduce sea views along this busy stretch of the Promenade, for visitors and locals alike, particularly those enjoying a leisurely stroll along the front, taking a trip on the Littlehampton Miniature Railway, or simply taking advantage of the views presently offered by the seats provided.

Equally, local homeowners, who have paid a premium price for their property location, will also have their sea view impeded.

If Inspire Leisure seriously believes there is strong demand for more beach huts, is there any logical reason why the proposed six new huts could not be sited either to the east or west of the existing groups where there is plenty of free space available?

The grouping of the existing huts was obviously implemented after careful thought and consideration and presumably believed to be the best layout; gaps are essential for sea views and easy access to the beach.

Nobody, residents or visitors alike, wishes to see a continual line of beach huts blocking their sea view.

Inspire Leisure also needs to remember that we, the local public, live here all year round, whilst the use of beach huts is seasonal and many of the existing huts do not appear to be utilised even in the summer months.

Do we seriously need more, particularly if buyers, from outside the local area, are purchasing purely for personal investment purposes?

Commercial considerations apart, we hope common sense will prevail and Arun will address these concerns, and act in the best interests of the Littlehampton public.

The present planning application must be rejected or returned to the drawing board for amendment.

Sue Allen and John Jefferson

Fairway

Littlehampton