Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 20th November 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Battle fury over Rother's £3.5m seafront pledge



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
10 October 2008
Battle councillors have reacted with fury after Rother District Council voted to spend £3.5 million on a controversial face-lift for Bexhill seafront.
Plans to enlarge the Colonnade to build cafes and bars were approved after a fierce and heated debate at a council meeting last Monday (September 29).

Rother had already set aside £1m for the project, as well as the £3.5m.

But at the meeting,
Cllr David Vereker, representing Darwell/Burwash, slammed the proposals as "ill thought-out, financially imprudent and unfair."

And this sentiment appears to be echoed by councillors across Battle.

Battle mayor Ron Harris said: "The problem we have is most people in Rother think Bexhill should have it's own town council and own funding.

"The cost of these projects, where huge amounts of money need to be spent, the people like us in Battle feel pretty remote from it as these things do not affect our day to day life and we are concerned about this amount of money going into projects in Bexhill.

"Such large amounts of money are bound to affect us in terms of council tax and I do not see any links between Bexhill seafront and Battle town."

Cllr Kevin Dixon, Rother District Councillor for Battle, said: "I'm in favour of regeneration, wherever it is in the district, but I do think the money spent on this is excessive, especially when I think the proposal has not been worked through properly and a business case has not been put forward,

"It's a bit woolly."

At last week's meeting, Rother councillor Sue Prochak, called for an amendment delaying any decision on funding until after public consultation and marketing exercises have been completed and scruitinsed.

The amendment was rejected.

Cllr Prochak said: "It seems an outrageous amount of money for what they're going to get.

"I do not deny that the seafront needs upgrading but it seemed to me an outrageous amount of money for very little return.

"There's also a lot of opposition locally and it had not gone out for consultation.

"I was concerned the rural areas were getting their share."

Cllr Prochak, who represents Salehurst ward, said Rother should be doing more to help smaller local projects, such as the Sedlescombe Pavilion, to which Rother gave £30,000, leaving a shortfall of £58,000.

She said: "The pavilion they are building is going to last a life time - it's a very solid, wonderful building.

"It's used by many, many primary schools, junior football teams and it's a proper pavilion."

Cllr Prochak added: "Bexhill is so special in it's own right.

"The seafront does need upgrading, but it needs good housekeeping - the street lighting upgrading, things for children - but not this spend or huge infrastructure, which I gather from what I've heard, people do not want.

"When you look at what's going into Bexhill compared to what's going into the rural areas, there's no comparison.

"I'm not saying regeneration is not needed in Bexhill, but not what they're doing."



The full article contains 509 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 October 2008 9:22 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Rye & Battle
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.