Your letters - November 28

Police inaction

ONCE again there is a fairly major crime (Observer, November 14) of the Birchwood Ford garage forecourt vandalism almost within spitting distance of Bexhill police station.

Similarly, we had the arson attack in the car park off Wainwright Road some time ago when bins and vehicles were lost.

I really cannot imagine why when the police have no such high tech equipment costing millions of pounds to catch motorists who have no tax or no insurance or MoT that our now very expensive police force cannot stop crime on their own doorstep.

I feel this not only shows where police main action is aimed and that to raise money from drivers whether it is for speeding or driving without a seat belt or some other misdemeanour, but catching and punishing the real criminal is apparently too expensive. Mind you, by committing crimes so close to the police station the size of Bexhill's it does show the contempt that our seemingly impotent force is held in by criminals.

Perhaps if the so-called "Bexhill Neighbourhood Policing Team" got out on the streets they would not have to appeal once again to the public to do their job for them.

Oh, sorry, I did see as many as three police officers on the morning of Saturday, November 8 or Sunday, November 9 looking very efficient standing both sides of the road outside the church at Little Common but as usual just enjoying looking at the passing traffic. A shame really that from their nice warm office they don't keep a better eye on the parked ones at Birchwood's.

Kelly Stewart

Duke Street

Housing option

We are now starting a consultation period regarding development in Rother district for the next 20 years.

May I ask the population within the Bexhill area to consider a fourth option for housing?

We have owner occupier, rented and shared ownership. If you pay a rent, it never ends. Shared ownership means one can buy up to 80 per cent of the property, which can be sold on the open market, this means it is not affordable for the next generation.

For a number of years it would appear that people believe house values are the only thing that matters; and they must keep going up. Most people know this can't happen, but somehow all government bodies delay the fall, well, now it has happened. We have huge individual debts, family breakdown, crime and mental depression in our communities, businesses have closed down to become brown field sites creating more job losses. We should be addressing these issues before they begin.

We have at the moment problems with knife crime, vandalism and young people with no vision for their future. Many of these problems derive from the layout and designs of estates, where there is no open space and communities do not communicate with each other.

Whilst it is important to have one's own space, people do need the company of others and a revised layout and design is needed. This would mean all development land would be passed over to a community trust and a rental would be paid to the owners.

Income from agricultural land at this time would be about 500 an acre. If one doubled this to 1000 an acre it would not be unreasonable. The trust would oversee development. Developers would be instructed to build houses for around 80,000. These would be sold at cost, plus ground rent, to the people with a priority need in the district, with a restriction that one may only sell back to the trust.

On all new sites there should be a building where young people can meet, and the building would accommodate two paid couples who would be paid to run activities and be there for any support that is required.

Building houses with bricks increases CO2 emissions. We are destroying fish breeding beds by dredging the sea beds for shingle. I suggest houses should be built using timber on a steel frame; sheep's wool for insulation and fireproofing and solar panels on the roof.

On large new development sites, there is a need for industrial workshops, we as a nation should be looking at what we import and ask 'can we produce this here?' In most cases the answer will be yes. If this means paying 6 or 7 an hour in wages, we need to create a means of being able to live on that wage. Again a trust could be in control of industrial units.

New homes need to be built with elderly people in mind. We are told that we need care in the community, or stay in our homes as long as possible. What we need is large houses with rooms for older, retired parents to be looked after. This means a design, where one can be separate but under one roof. The same houses would be good for young people for friends and nannies. All new developments should include a portion of care/nursing homes, where paid couples could be on site full-time to care for these people. Isolation is a big issue which in turn causes further illness. Young people coming out of care need supported accommodation.

Every village could be asked to find a site for 15-20 homes under the Community Land Trust plan.

Anyone in need of a home in the Rother district, please contact me at the address below in order to consider putting in a joint application for real affordable housing.

Laurence Keeley

Fairfield

Herstmonceux

Heavy handed

THE second issue of Rother District Council's recycling newsletter has dropped on the mat, carrying with it an air of menace.

It is time to remind councillors and officers that they, too, have a duty of care. The buck stops with the council, not with the contractor. And not with the residents and businesses of Rother.

The newsletter itself is a mass of contradictions. Yellow Pages is acceptable on page 3 but gets a big red 'X' on page 7 (where the menacing Duty Of Care is); it now seems that only plastic bottles - and only types 1, 2 and 3 - are acceptable, directly contrary to previous instructions. Again, it would seem that the council is unaware that some dessert pots, etc, and Tesco's plastic bags now carry the type 2 symbol.