Readers' letters - November 19

Ruth O’Keefe asks the question “Is it fair that the ability to pay and/or be thick skinned about the debt is the key admission criteria for university?”

The answer is no it is not.

The situation now has been brought about by changes that started many years ago. I am probably more than twice as old as Ruth. I had the benefit of an education at the Lewes County Secondary School for Boys, later the Lewes County Grammar School, and arrived in 1945 at the stage where I was considered as possible university standard.

There were two choices, one you stayed on for two years at school for further study relevant to what you thought would be your career path, or you could leave and become an apprentice or trainee with a company or organisation which would provide practical training with day release or sandwich courses to obtain recognised qualifications in your discipline at a technical college.

The demise of the technical colleges came about, I may be corrected on this, when the funding from government favoured a university and as a result technical colleges and other training establishments became universities offering a wide range of study subjects.

This started our present problem but the situation became impossible with the New Labour idea that 55 percent of school leavers should have a university education with the result that we have doubled the universities and students – more than the tax paying public can support.

What we are now hearing is that the highest charges for degree courses include medicine, law, the sciences and engineering.

Now I as a taxpayer am quite happy for these students together with those who want to teach to be funded to a level where, on qualifying, they have no debt and are ready to provide a service to the community.

But now we have to ask – is it fair to expect the taxpayer to fund students who want to take courses on subjects for which there will be limited or no need.

I guess this letter will raise a few hackles, but if readers have access to the internet, take a look at courses on offer at the two local universities and, as Ruth finally said, “you decide”.

Brian Beck, Lewes

Closure causes round trip

For the past 43 years, I have lived in the first house in New Road at the Lewes Road end where, for the past eight months, a so-called experimental barrier has been erected.

This has caused me to drive further every time I leave home and right round the block to reach my starting point when I want to access the by-pass or south on the A26, thus adding nearly three miles to every round-trip – even to Little Horsted churchyard which is only three-quarters of a mile away. What a waste of time and petrol.

I did not choose to live in a cul-de-sac all those years ago and I strongly object to being forced to do so now, especially at the far end of a half-mile long cul-de-sac.

I believe that most of those wanting closure are comparative new-comers and it makes me wonder why they moved here if they wanted a nice quiet road.

They make great issue of safety, but I can honestly say that I have never, ever heard of one single incident regarding safety in the road.

If it would make them feel safer, install a 10mph speed limit and a pedestrian crossing to the children’s play area.

You will remember that this idea of closure was the sole solution that the developer put forward when one of the objections to the development was the fear of rat-runners, which the council jumped at instead of seeking other views.

Surely, there should be no need for concern until the houses are built and occupied, as it would only be then that the effect of rat-running would be known.

But please bear in mind that New Road is a public highway and should, by definition, be open for use by the general public. It is not the property of New Road residents and I believe that neither they nor the council should have the right to close it.

Just two more short points:

1. How would you feel if one end of your road was suddenly closed for no good reason?

2. If you really want to close our village post office and shop, then go ahead and close New Road for good.

Dennis Speake, Uckfield

Community is divided

The WDC 2005 Local Plan allocating land north of Eastbourne Road for development and the subsequent granting of planning permission included a clear and unequivocal requirement as part of a legally binding agreement for traffic control measures to avoid increased use of New Road as a ‘rat-run’ between the Eastbourne Road and Lewes Road.

The need for such measures was based on both highway safety considerations and the potential harm to the amenities of New Road residents, children and pedestrians.

Two public consultations with residents in the immediate area established that the majority of those participating in the consultations favoured closure of the road at its junction with the A26 (Lewes Road) as the best method of controlling traffic flows.

However, in February, objections raised by the owner of Ridgewood Post Office claimed that the closure of New Road would lead to a significant loss of income, which in turn could lead to the closure of his sub-Post Office. This led to ESCC issuing a temporary road closure notice for eight months while they ‘reviewed the situation’.

Now the issue of the possible closure of the Post Office in Lewes Road (eight months later it is still open) is incidental to this central question of road and pedestrian safety, and not a material planning consideration. The premises may well cease trading, but not just because of the closure of an adjacent road.

The temporary closure immediately had the effect of decreasing existing through traffic movements in New Road by some 27 percent.

No longer a ‘rat-run’, but temporary closure only infuriated supporters and objectors alike, and totally polarised the two sides. Very sad.

But the saddest thing of all to me in this whole episode is that it has demonstrated the loss of any community cohesion or concern for each other in Ridgewood. The message that comes through is ‘I don’t care what happens to anyone else, as long as it doesn’t affect or inconvenience me’.

Now the road is to be re-opened, but only for another six months to allow the ESCC Highways Department to ‘gather more data’, hold another public consultation and come up with a satisfactory solution to the problem. What a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money.

Have we not already been through this exercise once?

Cllr Bob Sweetland, Ridgewood

Thank you for the donations

On behalf of Searchlight at Newhaven, can I say a very big thank you to the customers and staff at Sainsbury’s who were once again very generous during our recent collection at the store.

We managed to raise the magnificent sum of £700 which the Enterprise Centre on Denton Island through its charitable arm Basepoint has promised to double to £1,400.

We are currently raising money for a new bathroom in Webb House so that when we carry out our major scheme to refurbish Powell House, there will adequate bathing facilities for all the residents.

The money raised will go a long way to pay for a new hoist for use with some of our more disabled residents when they are having a bath.

Once again, a very big thank you from the residents and staff at Searchlight, Claremont Road, Newhaven.

Graham Amy,

chairman of the

Fundraising

Committee and Mayor of Newhaven

A glimpse at the past

There is a new project launching in Heathfield that will bring together both older and younger residents, who will begin by exploring the community’s history back over 50 years.

We will also be researching life in Heathfield now, and then using the research about the past and present to predict what it will be like to live in Heathfield in another 50 years – for better or worse!

The Future Village project, run by Action in rural Sussex, would love to hear from you if you have any memories, thoughts or opinions about Heathfield’s recent history or would like to consider the community’s future.

Please contact Zoë Ganderton on 07786 980 715 or email [email protected], or write to Zoë Ganderton, Heritage and Participation Officer, CYP Action in rural Sussex, Sussex House, 212 High Street, Lewes BN7 2NH.

Zoë Ganderton,

Lewes

Remember to close the gate

May I, through the courtesy of your columns, make a plea to each of two specific members of our local community.

We often walk our dogs on downland between Kingston and Lewes. This area includes Juggs Way and is adjacent to the site of the new windmill (in the making). I now refer to the morning of Sunday the 14th November. We approached entry to the downland (from Kingston) to which I refer – only to find the gate left open and a small group of ‘interested’ sheep – not so far from satisfying their curiosity of what adventures could be had through the open gate. With access to a busy road I’ll leave the potential consequences to your imagination.

So, my first plea is to the townfolk who visit or move to live amongst our beautiful countryside. For those of us raised in the countryside an early lesson learned is that you ALWAYS close a gate when entering, crossing or leaving a field – especially if livestock are present.

The second plea goes to the farmer who ‘owns’ the sheep currently present in that meadow. This is now the second time in as many weeks I have released a ewe entangled in the brambles along the lower edge of the meadow. The first was ten days or so ago and the brambles were firmly wrapped around the sheep’s neck. Please, trim the hedgerow or, preferably, fence off these areas to prevent your animals getting entrapped in them.

Keith J Hicks, Lewes

Creating a new future?

AS a regular recipient of the Sussex Express (sometimes a little late) I read Phil Hewitt’s doomsday view of the future of Sussex, I recalled the words of painter and poet Paul Nash, when after seeing the terrible carnage brought about in France due to the first world war – to quote ‘we are creating a new world’. This is how I feel about the wanton destruction of our treasured woods and fields of Sussex.

Haywards Heath in particular where I have lived for the past 30 years is currently suffering the carnage and destruction of the town’s beautiful woodland areas. Massive housing developments are eating up areas of outstanding natural beauty and will eventually destroy what has been Haywards Heath’s most precious assets.

Phil Hewitt’s article should be imprinted on the minds of all those involved in planning and the future of Sussex as a whole. What is important is what does the future hold for us?

R Cosham,

Haywards Heath

Estuary needs more debate

I refer to Patrick McClausand’s letter “Let nature take its course” (November 5).

Back in 2001 when my wife and I ran the Golden Galleon at Cuckmere Haven, we were approached by the Environment Agency and told that to alleviate flooding back up the valley, to improve wildlife habitat and to help increase visitor numbers to the haven, it would be a good idea to flood it in two separate stages.

We were shown a brochure with a pretty drawing of how the valley would look and we were immediately in favour of this seemingly fantastic idea.

It later transpired that improving flooding up river would not be helped by this plan. We also learned that mud flats would not form for perhaps 50 or more years, or perhaps never!

Lastly, we discovered that this excercise was motivated by a long-term cost cutting necessity. When we asked for further details, we soon realised the decision had already been taken to go ahead.

The EA representative admitted that bulldozers had already been booked to start work on re-modelling the shape of the mouth of the river Cuckmere.

What would happen to the A259? Not in their brief to consider this. What about the existing wildlife inhabiting the area already? They would have to re-locate. What about if visitors stop coming because of not being able to walk in the heart of the valley? Not sure about that. What if a salt marsh environment never forms and we end up with a muddy, smelly, ugly expanse? No, we are fairly sure this won’t happen.

We pointed out that lots of rights of way needed to be considered. A group was formed and was able to slow down the un-democratic process that would have led to a no way back situation.

Local MPs Norman Baker and Nigel Waterson called for a more comprehensive consultation on this matter. It transpired that more than £600k had already been spent by the EA. Was this really a good value way to spend ever more precious public funds?

It turns out that making ANY changes to the existing status quo would be hugely expensive and would certainly not help with the original reason, which was to save money. Somebody would have to pay to protect the A259, seriously re-enforce some of the remaining banks, re organise rights of way, re-route the South Downs way, pay solicitors to negotiate changing existing legal arrangements, I could go on.

By the way, did I mention the archaeological importance of some the sites affected by this plan? I just think that “letting nature take its course” looks a lot more costly and problematic than maintaining the status quo. I for one consider the so called “cut” at Cuckmere Haven, to be one of the greatest engineering achievements of its time, helping to create and protect one of the most visited, iconic areas in the world.

I am also sorry that Mr McClausand felt that the group set up to decide the future of the Cuckmere River estuary seemed to be going nowhere and that he resigned. If this kind of comprehensive and careful consultation was to take place all the time, perhaps we would not find ourselves clearing up and paying for the messes made by decisions taken by so called “experts”, the ones that “know what’s best for us”. Lots of local people are giving up their time to make sure that what is decided has been given the most careful consideration. I believe this is what democracy is all about and pulling out of this process only helps the more extremist views to win the day.

I am not sure what the best solution is for Cuckmere Haven, but I think we should carefully consider the options, have a good debate, then look at it again, just in case we spoil this amazing valley for no good reason.

Stefano Diella, Seaford