Your Letters - November 28

We welcome your letters - email them to rye.battleobserver@trbeckett.co.uk Please include your name and address if your letter is for publication.

There was no form of adequate discussion

I AM replying to comments made in your paper regarding my recent letter about the proposed new Community Arts Centre in Rye at the Freda Gardham School.

I have seen the district council's documentation on the matter, and talked with many who have an interest in the project.

Councillor Glazier is seriously in error in supposing there was any form of adequate discussion of this major project within Rye before its approval by the district council.

The facts are as follows:

The matter was brought to the attention of a cabinet meeting at Rother on November 3.

It was never discussed by the Town Council in Rye and most members had no prior information on the project.

Neither had the public and neither did the chairs of three relevant arts organisations within Rye.

The proposal was further criticised by Mr George Shackleton, an ex-Mayor and district councillor at question time at the meeting of the town council on November 17.

Mr Shackleton's later remarks were then very abruptly terminated by the Mayor.

All comment at this stage was, of course, too late. The issue had at this stage become a fait accompli and 45,000 of public money had been committed despite reservations by the Director of Services at Rother District Council and by ESCC.

No-one has any objection to the launching of worthy arts projects within Rye.

However there must be adequate discussion before money is committed, both with local people and with all the local organisations concerned.

The process is called democracy, and its operation has been sadly lacking in much of Rye's recent history.

Keith Taylor

Lion Street, Rye

Achieving goals does take time

I SHOULD like to reply to the comments made by Cllr Keith Glazier in your newspaper (November 21) in connection with accusations he has made both in the paper and in council recently, which were also supported by the Rye Mayor in statements he made surprisingly at that full council meeting.

Cllr Glazier asks what the Campaign for a Democratic Rye is delivering?

I said at full council that a statement would be made at the next full council meeting which I am sure he would agree was a more appropriate venue.

However, he must also agree that to achieve the goals which we set out at the last election does take time. I said as much in my monthly column this month which I hope he will have read.

The creation of Area Committees can be achievable, but only when Rye Town Council and the surrounding parishes realise it is the only way to go to bring greater democracy and local decision-making to Rye and its surrounding areas.

Such radical thought has been achieved successfully by Eastleigh Borough Council and many more councils in the country.

The one thing the CDR Group cannot promise is the length of time it will take, but the intelligent electorate know that there are no quick fixes.

In the backgound much negotiation and work is progressing and some of this will become apparent in the coming months.

A web site has been set up where matters of interest will be posted. This will shortly be advertised to everybody to allow more involvement.

Talks are also proceeding with neighbouring parishes. We believe that it is right to be positive in our approach.

Dr Keith Taylor was not being negative about the Arts Centre. He was simply asking that consultation with interested parties would have been a better way to have gone about the centre's creation rather than making it appear as a fait accompli.

In fact we would both agree we have no opposition to its creation as long as funding is not taken away from the other worthy arts organisations in the town.

I would just finish by saying that the Group totally disagrees with the accusations Cllr Glazier has made, and that we believe that the creation of an Area Committee system of local government is achievable, but it requires persuasion, patience and toil.

We promised the electorate we would work towards this goal. Our aims were plainly stated at the last local election in the town, and are re-stated on the web site. Our commitment is no less now than it was then.

Cllr Granville Bantick

Chairman

Campaign for a Democratic Rye Group

Lack of consultation

AT a meeting of Rye Town Council on Tuesday, November 18, I asked the Mayor for the council's reaction to the proposed Rye Creative Centre, a project of questionable merit supported by the Rother Cabinet at a cost of 45,000 of Council taxpayers' money.

Despite the fact that two of the Rother Cabinet members who voted for this project are also members of the Town Council, the Mayor, the town clerk and most of the councillors had not heard of this project, so the Mayor called on Cllr. Glazier for support.

Cllr Glazier performed very well with a long spiel of maudlin, sentimental balderdash with no facts or figures, no mention of costs or income, no evidence of who/what groups have signed up to this in the Arts community.

Rother Director of Services states, "The risks attached to this project are financial and deliverability." Consequently I think Dr Keith Taylor was right to express concern over the lack of consultation.

GEORGE SHACKLETON

Udimore Road, Rye

Town plan failure

WHEN Rother District Council brought its Local Development Framework exhibition to Rye last Thursday, it became clear that our own town council had not contributed to the consultation process with an updated town plan. I am now told there never has been a Rye town plan of any sort, outdated or otherwise.

If local parish councils were able to produce their own village plans during the last eight years, how could Rye Town Council have neglected this primary responsibility? Its failure has simply handed local strategy decisions to the district council with no imput from our elected local body.

John Howlett

Love Lane

Rye

Good and bad news

AS IN most weeks, and in most parts of this country, there is good news and bad news, although you have to look hard for the good news these days.

In Battle, the good news is that at long last English Heritage have tidied-up the space around the telephone box in Park Lane, and neatly covered the ground with turf. Congratulations to them.

One day they might get around to putting up a No Entry sign indicating that coaches and caravans cannot park down there - but these things take time!

Another piece of good news is that the current occupants of the Pilgrims Rest restaurant have worked very hard in clearing the front garden there.

Now for the bad news. Until Jempsons replaced Budgens in the Market Square, Budgens co-operated very well with the Beautiful Battle committee by providing funds to to pay for plants and have the difficult sloping embankment grass cut regularly.

Since Jempsons took over, neither company is prepared to support the committee's efforts. They don't seem to appreciate that B B members, who work voluntarily to keep the Market Square looking attractive to visitors and customers, do so to the benefit of both companies.

John Hill

Glengorse

Battle

PS: Another item of bad news. My wife lost her gold wrist watch near the Memorial Hall last Wednesday week. If found please retrun to the police.

Market forces!

IN ANSWER answer to Fran Courtney's letter about Battle Farmers Market - doesn't she understand why people are not going to these markets is because they are twice the cost of going to the supermarkets. This day and age we cannot afford them. If they want more customers they will have to compete with supermarkets prices.

SID DAVIS

Icklesham

Battle of the birds

LYDD Airport, curiously re-titled London Ashford Airport by its current proprietors, has its extended principal runway directed towards the Dungeness nuclear power-stations by way of one of the largest migratory and residential bird reserves in Europe.

On Monday, November 10, this year, a Boeing 737 passenger-jet had to be crashlanded at a major Italian airport as the direct consequence of numerous birds being sucked into the engine-intakes.

If the bird-strikes to both engines had occurred during or immediately after take-off, instead of landing, the passengerjet would have crashed into countryside or into buildings with the likelihood of all 166 passengers plus aircrew being killed.

Among the species of birds on the Lydd reserve there are large birds such as swans and herons and godwits.

No problem: all you need to do is organise annihilation of the flocks by means of shotguns and field artillery borrowed from nearby MoD firing ranges.

Some airports have used large eagles to butcher flocks of birds that were a potential hazard to passenger and cargo jets - but the bird populations on the unique and vast shingle-beds south and east of Lydd are too large in number, too widely spread, to be suitable for control by eagles. So: load; steady; ready; fire!

C R CHIZLETT

North Salts, Rye

Wrong type of wind?

NOW we have these wind turbines, when are they going to start working for their living.

Not that they will ever pay back their costs as far as emissions are concerned, that balance is unreachable in their life expectancy, I am led to believe.

We were told they were being commissioned and would be operational by mid-October. Well October has come and gone and November has come and nearly gone and still they remain as statues.

Is it because they are taking into account

the birds, highly unlikely (not that I know when the swans migrate through there) or is it because it's the wrong type of wind we've been having? It would be interesting to know their excuse.

B Martin

Rye

Marsh hazards

NO Mr Greenfield, you are not the only one that likes the wind farm. I, like you, have seen many wind farms on my travels in France and Spain.

I am a naturalist and have no worries regarding the turbines and the birds - in fact I regard the power lines over the Marsh more of a hazard to wildlife.

I have never seen piles of dead birds around these farms in France.

The trouble is that the RSPB will jump on any bandwagon that comes along.

Like me they know what kills thousands of birds each year but do nothing about it (I'm a RSPB member).

I would like to see more wind farms and not nuclear power. If a nuclear power station goes wrong we'll all die.

ANTONY PIPER

Denham Way, Camber

Gang Show delight

DON'T be too hasty to demonise today's youngsters. They are not all walking the streets with guns, knives, cans of spray paint or lager!

On Saturday, at the White Rock Theatre, I was 'blown away' by the brilliant performances of dozens of local youngsters in the 2008 Hastings, Rye and District Gang Show.

There were hilarious comedy sketches, wonderful dancing, fantastic singing and excerpts from various popular shows.

The costumes and sets, particularly those for 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang', were spectacular.

The principal singers in their version of Hairspray were, to my mind, better than those in the west end show and easily equal to those in the film. The whole Gang assembled on stage, resplendent in their uniforms, for the finale.

It was then, at the sight of the many proficiency badges, you could tell how positively and constructively these talented youngsters were using their time.

John Breeds

Rye

Glimmer of hope on horizon

SO ANYONE who holds a legitimate view that disagrees with Messrs Broadbent and Greenfield is considered to be a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Well count me in and while you are about it, I have to admit to being one of the increasing number of global warming deniers and even more than that, I dare to contradict that man made carbon emissions are responsible for the climate change which is slowly taking place.

This opinion is enough to get me ostracised but if that happens I will be in good company because there are an equal or even greater number of scientists and academics, who hold a view diametrically opposed to those tame scientists who regularly feature on the annual IPCC jolly.

In the latest report in the public domain, they state 'we are 90% certain that CO2 emissions are the cause of the rise in global temperatures' - going on to say how computer models predict increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and disaster all round.

What they failed to recognise is that global warming has stalled which should not have happened if CO2 was responsible.

With regard to wind farms, there is no need to have a long-winded debate on the subject but unfortunately the advocates of these 'proud sentinels to the western approaches to the Romney Marsh', will never look at them from the perspective of being of any use in giving us a steady supply of electricity.

They will never concede that the output is intermittent as will be any attempt to harness wave and tidal power.

How much of a hermit do you have to be to be incapable of understanding modern living demands an uninterruptible supply of electricity, something impossible to achieve with any of these so called renewables.

The reason that Government is so keen on supporting these farms is to appease the Green lobby and the charities like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who have greenwashed Ministers into thinking that reducing CO2 emissions will suddenly change the climate back to how it was 40 years ago.

However, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon in that after 10 lost years of dithering the Energy White Paper appears to indicate we may be getting some action on building the only solution to our energy crisis and that is nuclear power stations, clean, carbon free, dependable and giving a continuous supply.

Regarding nuclear waste, this paragraph from the report and another from the Holy Grail of the Green lobby, the IPCC may allay their fears: 'We have technical solutions for waste disposal that scientific consensus and experience from abroad suggest could accommodate all types of waste from existing and new power stations. We agree with the recently published 4th report of the IPCC that nuclear power could have a role to play alongside other low carbon energy sources in reducing carbon emissions'.

Harry Kennard

Main Street, Peasmarsh

Just scratching at the surface

MR Broadbent's reply (Mailbag, November 21) to my letter raises some interesting points and perhaps we are not too far apart except on the issue of building new nuclear generation.

Like it or not this is the only viable option in the medium term to maintain our supplies and fortunately many of the contra arguments, some of which were identified by Mr Broadbent, are trite and overtaken by developments.

They just do not bear informed scrutiny. Space alone does not permit development of this issue.

Renewables are all very well but none now proposed is capable of supplying reliable base load within the required timescale.

Wind generation is particularly capricious because the yield is related to the cube of wind speed - and when the wind speed is high the plants are shut off thus output is maintained for only about 40% of the time and that might be when requirement is low.

Perhaps Mr Broadbent is disingenuous or not informed in failing to recognise there are two camps on the issue of the effect of carbon on global warming?

It must be borne in mind these two camps adhere to differing hypotheses and nothing is yet proven.

His acceptance of an economist and his dismissal of Dr Bellamy, a distinguished scientist and one of many, is curious.

There is no doubt climate change is afoot or there are massive economic consequences. But this is not to accept opinions, many of which are driven by political or financial interests, as to the cause.

The reference to Flat Earthers may be more apposite than Mr Broadbent intended. In AD 170 Ptolemy promulgated the hypothesis that the earth was the centre of the universe around which the planets circulated. This hypothesis stood for 1,400 years and to question it was heresy. Astronomers over these years sought to align observations with the hypothesis.

In the 1600s Copernicus promulgated the hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun and was thus fitting observations to the hypothesis.

Today the 'all-due-to carbon-emissions' brigade struggle to overlook the more obvious inconsistencies, such as the global warming from 8,000 BC, when much of England and all of Scotland was under deep ice to 2000 AD when it was warm enough to have vineyards along Hadrian's Wall.

And then again when in 1600s it was cold enough to roast an ox on the ice-covered Thames. During this time carbon emissions were minutely small by comparison with today. Sensibly, until the causes of global warming are unequivocally established, we are wise to assume carbon emissions make significant contribution and thus we must work toward long-term solutions eg. coal fired generation with carbon recovery (with several hundred years indigenous reserves) or significant projects such as a Severn Barrage (based on renewables).

Let us not delude ourselves wind farms are other than scratching the surface in a costly and inefficient way. As to their aesthetic appeal we can agree to differ. Perhaps when the lights go out Mr Greenfields can console himself on a still moonlit night with the beautiful view of his stationary white elephants!

C R DENT

Peasmarsh

Position taken by councillors not a personal one

WHILE one can empathise with correspondent Daryl Critchley's concern relating to her own employment (Mailbag, November 14), unfortunately 'the facts as she has seen them' with regard to the parish council and Councillor Prochak are inaccurate and biased.

It would perhaps be better to have a balanced understanding of the situation before launching more abuse on councillors.

Parish and district councillors were not unhelpful in the matter of the Post Office problems and the chairman of the parish council along with district councillor Sue Prochak met with the postmaster, Mr David Claydon right at the outset.

Councillor Prochak advised him of Rother District Council's policy of resisting change of use from commercial to residential unless there was evidence from proper marketing that continued retail use was unviable and the chairman confirmed the parish council's policy supported Rother.

Suggestions by both councillors to seek the support of Robertsbridge Enterprise Group were firmly declined by Mr Claydon!

Sadly, when unquestioning support for his proposals was not forthcoming Mr Claydon took this personally. In publications delivered to households he suggested the parish council was unsupportive, leading to the mistaken belief the council did not care about the threatened closure of the Post Office.

Ultimately, the chairman was (and still is) banned from the Post Office because Mr Claydon objected to the parish council setting out its position in its Newsletter to residents.

The parish council, at its meeting to consider the application, suggested the application was premature and requested Rother to delay a decision.

This is backed up by the planning inspector, who states quite clearly in his report that the property had been marketed for only four weeks before Rother refused the planning application and that 'such a short marketing period was clearly insufficient to demonstrate continued retail use would be unviable'.

The parish council did not object to moving the Post Office into alternative premises; that was not a planning consideration. But the separate matter of the change of use of the former premises clearly was.

The loss of any business premises represents a potential loss of employment and amenity for the community.

During the appeal procedure much was made of the fact there were already two empty shops in the village but these have now both re-opened and this would not have been possible if they had been allowed to convert to residential.

As the Inspector also noted, what the appellant might consider as financially unviable is not necessarily how others might view it.

I would also like to set the record straight regarding the way the appeal was dealt with. It was not Rother District Council's decision to hold a public inquiry to determine Mr Claydon's appeal.

The Planning Inspector made this decision when he became aware of the level of public interest and correspondence generated by the application.

It is good to see the threat of withdrawal of the Card Account from Post Offices has now been lifted and this, together with other proposals that are being considered, might mean the future of our Post Office is more secure.

It would be a pity if this were marred by ongoing unpleasantness towards those elected to fulfil the difficult task of considering the wider interests of the whole community.

The position taken by councillors has not been a personal one. The matter has been concluded. I think the time has come to put an end to the bitterness.

Mrs K L Ripley

Clerk

Salehurst & Robertsbridge

Parish Council

Means and excuse to raise taxes

WORRYINGLY, Chris Broadbent claims (Mailbag November 21): '2,500 of the world's top climate scientists came to the consensus when they signed the UNIPCC findings that our own emissions do indeed cause change'. Not so!

First, they emphatically were not 2,500 'climate scientists'! They came from a wide spectrum of fields from botanists to political scientists.

Many top, bone fide, climate change scientists (meteorologists, geologists, climatologists) were excluded from the survey.

If their own findings then contradicted the 'official' political consensus, they were denounced as 'deniers', 'Flat Earthers', and government research funding denied them.

Second, many will recall that in the 1970s, scientists predicted from falling global temperatures, that we were entering a new mini Ice-age, which would last many decades.

The UNIPCC scientific analysis concluded there was (and I quote from the draft UNIPCC report of 2006): 'a 90% probability the temperature rises in the last 50 years are probably manmade'.

Note well that the scientists used the word 'probably' and not 'conclusive'. The UNIPCC report recognised natural, cyclical 'climate changes'.

Indeed, anyone can study such natural changes in the contemporary UK weather records of the last 120 years in the annual Whitakers Almanacs. To a statistician (and by definition, a scientist using statistical analysis to test a hypothesis), a '90% probability' emphatically does not mean '100% proof positive.

But, having published the draft UNIPCC report, pressure from Western governments demanded the UNIPCC conclusion be written as a policy reflecting the pre-conceived political consensus (later supported by the Stern Report) that global warming and climate change was 'conclusively' man-made, quite contrary to the scientific analysis. The politicians and spin-doctors thereafter held in contempt all who disagreed.

Finally, Nicholas Stern (ex London School of Economics) is not a climate scientist. He was Tony Blair's Head of Government Economic Services and his 'Review of the Economics on Climate Change' of October 2006, was a worse case economic scenario commissioned by Gordon Brown in July 2005.

Mr Stern was ennobled as Lord Stern of Brentford in December 2007 after his politically favourable report was published.

Given his professional background in public relations and now, ecoshopping, I'm not surprised Mr. Broadbent admits to trusting economists and political spin on 'climate change' rather than well founded observations by bone fide scientists, such as Dr David Bellamy whom he arrogantly dismisses as 'misinformed and emotive'.

I feel he owes David Bellamy an apology and should humbly accept (as do all sane people!) C R Dent's accurate, earlier observation that man-made climate change paranoia presents a ready means and excuse to raise taxes - none of which are 'ring fenced' for the cause.

BARRY JONES

Bixley Lane, Beckley

No more than a 'top-up shop'

THE published challenges to Mr R Dent's letter (are Wind Turbines Effective) in Mailbag, November 21, are missing the point of his letter.

I am sure he will agree that it's very important that we must find a viable source of 'green options' to serve us with our greater demand for clean, cheap power. Wind Turbines are one way, but this is no more than a top-up shop and at what cost? The main aim of using green energy is to cut emissions of CO2 and other harmful substances into the atmosphere.

But from the time of iron and other ores are taken from the ground, shipped, smelted at great heat, fabricated, assembled, transported, erected on site with all the infra-structure in place, I question how many years it will need just to repay the cost of the great carbon footprint for which windmills are responsible?

Before leaving the love hate debate of windmills, I would like to know how many of the 50 people asked lived in this area?

All funds available should be used on urgent research into the harnessing of the immense and time predictable power of the Atlantic. So far, all I have read is one experiment with wave power.

What is wrong with submerged turbines utilising the force of the ebb and flow of the tide?

Finland is served with Hydro power from its fresh water lakes and melt water.

There is unlimited power all round our coast. Let us use it. It only needs backing and expertise.

Next the 'rusting pylons that have littered the skyline'. These were erected to carry generated power from Dungeness and also the imported power from France to the West Country.

They are still in full use and far from being 'rusting relics' are built of very heavily galvanised steel and are regularly repainted with corrosion resistant paint and inspected by helicopter with heat monitoring equipment to detect 'hot spots' and insulation faults.

Yes we did not like them when first erected but everyone soon accepted them when informed of the great cost of the only alternative, namely underground transmission.

And this for Mr David Greenfield with apologies to the memory of Rudyard Kipling:

They builded a tower to shiver the sky

And wrench the stars apart

Till the Devil grunted, behind the bricks

It's striking, 'BUT IS IT ART?'

C F PIGGOTT

Brickfields, Peasmarsh

Hope for the best

I SEE from David Greenfield's letter (November 21) that he looks forward to cheap electricity from our wind farm.

The wind is free but, unfortunately, whatever its merits or otherwise, one thing of which we can be sure is that the wind farm will not produce cheap electricity.

It has cost 6m to construct and the whole project is only viable because of a large Government subsidy paid from our taxpayers' money.

So it has cost us a great deal before it has produced any power at all. However, this morning one of the units is actually turning in the cold east wind, so, we must hope for the best!

Dr CHRIS PITCHER

Military Road, Rye

• Email to a friend
• Print this page