Readers' Letters - June 4 2009

Readers' letters from the June 4 issue of the Observer.

Studentville is a good idea - more housing is needed

I'm sure this will be the only letter in support of the decision to grant planning approval for student accommodation on the former site of Chichester High School in Stockbridge Road.

Despite the usual prejudices and stereotypes being advocated by David Wilson (secretary of the Chichester Society) that all 'students indulge in noisy lifestyle and late-night parties' this simply perpetuates generational misunderstanding and division.

I think the scheme provides a progressive step forward in terms of adjusting the disproportionate balance in favour of providing suitable accommodation for young people within Chichester.

There remains a pressing need for suitable accommodation for young people within the city, despite the local hysteria such proposals generated.

Opponents' claims that 'all students buy cars' seems to be accepted as fact, when it is clearly a sweeping generalisation.

I wonder how many of the opponents have actually had to manage on a limited income based upon student loans or bursaries and been dependent upon public transport.

By providing this accommodation within the city, student cars will not be necessary because of its central location within easy walking or cycling distance to both college and university campuses.

I find the opponents' main argument of additional noise and traffic congestion somewhat flawed.

Chichester residents know Stockbridge Road remains one of the main arterial roads into the city. The small amount of Stockbridge Road residential occupants must have been aware of this, but still choose to live in a busy city central location.

In terms of the sheltered housing scheme on Stockbridge Road, I would question how many of the residents actually venture outside or are actively affected by the noise or traffic.

What the opponents fail to grasp is the student population that comes to the city to study generates a huge amount of local revenue within the city in terms of shops, services and employment.

I wonder if the Chichester Society would have objected so loudly if yet another 'bland and boring' McCarthy and Stone retirement scheme had been granted planning approval on this site instead?

David Gaylard, Peacock Close, Chichester

I'm all for the development, as the building has been empty for so long. There are several questions, though.

Could this not be a development for first-time buyers, as Chichester is so expensive?

As for the shortage of parking spaces, will students of the future be able to afford cars? Why would students who are in walking, cycling, bus ride, train ride away from civilisation need a car?

My son has been at university for two years and has walked or got the train.

I understand that maybe 11 spaces may not be realistic but with obesity on the rise, a bit of exercise wouldn't any of them any harm – and I'm sure a lot of students would agree.

Mrs T Austin, Stockbridge Gardens, Chichester

One office, one set of costs - one good idea

There is a department at Arun District Council with a team of people on inflation-proof salaries who will get final salary pensions; the department is run by an officer on a very good salary indeed and their function is to administer the refuse collection in the district.

Ten miles away in Chichester, there is an identical department of people with the same benefits doing just the same for the Chichester district.

And over the country there are another 100 or more departments doing the same for their districts.

Now just think how much money we could save nationally if we just had one office of people somewhere taking care of the refuse for the whole country.

We would still have the same people locally actually emptying the bins, the same depot foremen and you would still have people to call if your bin is missed.

But with the money we would save by getting rid of all the duplication of office staff, we could invest immediately in technology to achieve 100 per cent recycling and reduce the council tax.

But why stop there? Most functions of local government could be administered centrally, not only saving shedloads of money but giving us better joined-up services as well.

If all roads and road building were under the Highways Agency, we would have much better roads in West Sussex.

And what about the NHS? If we had one centrally-run NHS instead of all these local quangos, there would be no postcode lottery for getting drugs and treatment.

And the money we would save by not having all these overpaid bureaucrats running the PCTs, we could invest in more hospital staff, equipment and drugs.

What we really should be thinking of doing now is scrapping the county and district councils and losing many of the unnecessary posts they have created, such as the armies of eco-fascists they like to employ to tell us how to live our lives.

We should transfer functions such as planning, tourism and leisure and other things that should be kept local to our town and parish councils who could work together on bigger projects.

And with the vast amount of money we would save nationally, we could scrap the council tax, improve important services and pay off more quickly the huge debt Gordon Brown has saddled the country with.

The only losers would be all the career bureaucrats in the councils, but it's about time they were told to go and find real jobs as the country can't afford them any more.

And what simply beggars belief is that David Cameron, who is supposed to be committed to more efficient public services, wants to do the opposite and devolve more central government functions to local government.

What he should remember is by doing that, for every Whitehall job he loses he will create 100 or more new jobs round the country.

And if you think what I am suggesting will mean less democracy, well, when was the last time local councillors or, more to the point, officers of the councils listened to you?

Under the present arrangement you are paying all that council tax just for an illusion: the illusion of local democracy and control rather than anything real.

Gary J Oakes, Pagham

Our MP should stay in touch with residents all year round

I refer to the letter from Leon de Brunner concerning our MP Andrew Tyrie (Observer, last week) being up front over his expenses.

To some extent I agree with Mr de Brunner in that Mr Tyrie, as our parliamentary representative, should have immediately volunteered a public meeting regarding his expenses or maybe simply issued the Observer with a detailed breakdown when this issue broke nationally.

Had he done so, he would have earned more general respect rather than being dragged into it by public demand.

But I suggest it goes further than this. Throughout his tenure, Mr Tyrie has been somewhat lacking in his communication and PR with his electorate to the extent he is almost anonymous.

Apart from a very occasional photo opportunity of him visiting a school in the area, or when involved in the recent hospitals debacle, we know little about him personally and his activities on our behalf – unless we seek this information ourselves. In fact, his expenses for previous years, parliamentary activity and outside interests are published for all to see on the www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/andrew_tyrie/chichester website, from which you will see that he actually has a pretty good record – generally above the average for MPs.

But why should we need to seek this information ourselves when it cannot be assumed we all have internet facilities?

Surely it is Mr Tyrie's duty to bring it to our attention himself if he expects our continuing support

at a time when politicians generally are being so discredited in the public eye and the minority parties are working hard to take advantage.

After all, compared to many others, he appears to have a favourable record with nothing to hide and much to be proud of.

A simple weekly or monthly report from him personally published in the Observer would do wonders for his public image.

Colin May, Lodgebury Close, Southbourne, Emsworth

Profit comes first - but quality is suffering

As someone very interested in the music scene in the area, I feel I must write and express my feelings about two music extravaganzas being advertised, as I am sure there are many other music lovers in the area who feel as I do.

First of all the Real Ale and Jazz Festival in Priory Park, which I used to attend when it was a jazz festival.

How is it the trade description people do not take the organisers to task for misrepresentation, when the majority of bands appearing are nothing to do with jazz?

What a shame it appears the quest for bigger profit should result in changing the whole concept of the original idea.

By all means change it if you are interested only in profit, but please call it something else.

My second moan is why the organisers of this event should be allowed to put up advertising boards, weeks before the day and not just a reasonable time, to alert the public to it.

Other smaller organisations are continually being harassed by the council to remove signs and yet they have boards up for several weeks.

Now it is the turn of the Festivities and their firework night at Goodwood.

I used to visit the event when they had a good marching band and the atmosphere was brilliant, especially when the music led in to the firework display.

But no, once again – I guess it is the call for more profit – they have descended to having 'tribute' bands you can see any day of the week at local theatres.

Thank goodness for the Jazz Club and the Rugby Club who put on a 'proper' Real Ale and Jazz night in Oaklands Park, when we enjoyed two fine English past-times.

And I hope they made a bit of money in the process.

Anyway, good luck to anyone promoting music – and in particular Roots around The World, who do an admirable job presenting many types of music.

Tony Bleach, Midhurst Road, Lavant

Thanks for all your support

On behalf of the Southbourne support group for St Wilfrid's Hospice, may I thank all those who visited my open garden event in Prinsted on May 24 and enjoyed themselves so generously.

Many of the 350 visitors were readers of the Observer who had seen my event advertised the previous week.

I am sure they would be pleased to know we raised more than 2,800 for the hospice.

My special thanks to all members of the support group and to my neighbours in Prinsted, without whose co-operation and patience we would not be able to hold this event.

Hilary Gilson, chairman, Southbourne Support Group for St Wilfrid's Hospice, Prinsted, Emsworth

We'll carry on working with all young people

I write in response to the Observer article on May 21 regarding the sentencing of two teenagers following their 'crime spree' following their trial.

We at the local branch of the trust have supported dozens of young people from the Chichester area on difficult and challenging Tall Ship voyages.

Some of these youngsters have troubled backgrounds and their voyages are made possible only because of the generosity of various trust funds and local people who are committed to giving these youngsters an opportunity to improve themselves by raising confidence and self-esteem.

Youth work is a complex world and a positive outcome from every voyager is something the thousands of Tall Ship volunteers and supporters around the country can only aim for.

Contrary to a paragraph in the May 21 article, I would like to reassure readers, our supporters and, in particular, Aaron Dunsby that he has not lost the respect of the Tall Ships charity, and to suggest he has is untrue.

We are naturally appalled at his crimes and are disappointed he was unable to maintain the momentum he started while preparing for his voyage and continued during his training and very effective fundraising.

This positive aspect to his character was noted by the judge, confirmed by good reports from his last employer and we are sure that, with support, Aaron will learn from his mistakes.

With appropriate assurance and commitment, we would be happy to continue to work with him when he returns to our community on his release.

Paul Mills, chairman, Chichester branch of the Tall Ships Youth Trust

* The Observer carried a report of the court case. During the proceedings, it was stated Dunsby had 'lost the respect of some at the Tall Ships Trust'.

Canal is in a disgusting state

As an angler and person who enjoys the outdoor life, I am most disgusted at the condition and state of the Chichester canal and the footpaths that run from Hunston village into the basin at Chichester.

Over the past two weeks I have been fishing at the canal on several occasions and I have noticed more

and more rubbish in the canal and also dog fouling.

The dog fouling seems to be worse at the Chichester end of the canal.

What is the Canal Society doing about this?

There are no signs about dog fouling or litter and no litter bins.

The Canal Society has several boats and barges on the canal which run up and down and seem to be doing nothing.

This is a great area for all to enjoy, but it is being spoilt by people who don't seem to care about picking up their dog mess and rubbish.

CJ Ryde, Pagham

Sorry - we set Boris-like parameters before he was even mayor!

I write in response to Jan Cosgrove's letter last week, Bognor needs its own Boris to resist plan.

This letter said the chosen developers of the Regis Centre site, St Modwen, had been blocked by London's mayor Boris Johnson from a development in Queen's Market London, in the borough of Newham.

These plans in Newham are for a mixed retail and housing scheme and a relocated library.

The mayor of London commented the proposed design was inappropriate.

When the Bognor Regis regeneration sub-committee considered St Modwen's proposals for the town, the following comments were made, subsequently agreed by the sub-committee and the Arun District Council on March 5, 2008: "Any proposal for a building to be the dominant skyline landmark for the town must be of a sufficiently high architectural design quality to justify that position, or should not be provided at all."

Why, therefore, do we need our own 'Boris' to say something that was said over a year ago?

Cllr Norman Dingemans, Arun District Council's cabinet member for economic and cultural development and chairman of the Bognor Regis regeneration sub committee

I was astonished to read Gary Oakes' suggestion last week that I am the creator of Brighter Bognor – certainly an impressive conspiracy theory!

I can only leave Brighter Bognor to respond directly about the size of its organisation, relative to others that claim to be representative of the town's opinion.

But I do ask, Mr Oakes, that you do not feel sorry for me. I enjoy what I do and any positive messages generated by myself or my regeneration team are not 'spin'. They are born out of a genuine belief in and commitment to the positive future of this town – my home town.

I leave the negativity to others less supportive, and there seem to be plenty. Unfortunately it is this

type of negativity that adds to the difficulty of my job but it in no way diminishes my personal commitment or belief in Bognor Regis.

I consider it very odd, Mr Oakes, to link our new Bognor Regis regeneration logo to any one group in the town.

Do you fear the use of the words Bognor – or, better still, Bognor Regis and/or regeneration – would have equally sinister links to any other group in the town as well?

Perhaps it could be claimed that I created every group in the town which features the words 'Bognor Regis', 'creating', 'brighter' and 'future'?

The use of this logo to represent what is happening in Bognor Regis is supported by representatives

from West Sussex County Council, Bognor Regis Town Council, SEEDA, Butlins, the Bognor Regis Vision Group, Bognor Regis Ltd, Covers, Berkeley Homes, Sime Darby, Bognor Regis 21, University of Chichester, St Modwen, and the Bognor Regis Chamber of Commerce who, in time, will be using it in their developments to show their commitment to Bognor Regis.

Perhaps they are all in on the 'conspiracy'.

Richard McMann, head of the Bognor Regis regeneration task force

Gary Oakes' letter saw conspiracies in the use of 'brighter' in our title and in the town's new logo 'Bognor Regis – creating an even brighter future'.

Shame about your paranoia, Mr Oakes, but 'brighter' is quite a common word. Are the Met Office and detergent ads part of the conspiracy?

Yes, our 200-plus supporters want a brighter, better future for Bognor. We're proud of that and wonder if you and your friends are arguing for the opposite?

We're enthusiasts for regeneration and believe the town's decline has to be reversed.

So thanks for the free advert, Mr Oakes – it has brought us new supporters and if anyone else wants to join just email brighterbognor@yahoo.co.uk

Stan Jonas, chairman, Brighter Bognor, Devonshire Road, Bognor Regis

I read Gary Oakes' letter with a sinking heart. What a negative attitude and opinion – just what

we don't need during this time of Bognor's regenerations programme.

If anyone has attended any meeting where Mr McMann has spoken, then his passion for his subject is obvious.

I believe the residents of Bognor Regis are lucky to have a committed man like Mr McMann to fight their corner. Negative people, such as Mr Oakes, only serve to misinform the public about the true aims and objectives of the regeneration of this town.

Kate Whiteley, Marshall Avenue, Bognor Regis

We don't need more flats on our seafront

I have great reservations about the present suggested regeneration of this little seaside town and absolutely dread more flats being built on the seafront. No, please no!

So much of our town has been desecrated already by successive councils.

Visitors come to the coast to see the sea, not more enormous buildings blocking lovely views.

Why not build attractive flats inland (such as where the monstrous 30 storeys were going) and keep the seafront (Regis Centre) for real amenities for tourists, such as a skating rink, tenpin bowling, an indoor play area for young children (parents would love this, especially in wet or cold weather), imaginative seating areas and an attractive restaurant on two floors only, with a balcony all around the first floor.

We must try to keep our live theatre facilities and the market.

Could the empty Woolworths property perhaps be utilised for some of these, for example, for skating rink or tenpin bowling with refreshment areas?

To put third-world stalls in there would, I suggest, be utterly unsuitable.

We desperately need something in the town for our young people – there are far too many clubs here already.

We definitely do not want a library there when we already have an expensively-refurbished one in an ideal situation.

And the idea of it going into the Chichester College area is absurd – how many people would risk such a dangerous crossing?

Molly Hawkins, High Street, Bognor Regis

We don't want to move into an anti-dog area

We were moving, with our friends independently, to Felpham, having sold our houses in Surrey.

But, although being very responsible dog owners, we have withdrawn from our house purchases after learning Felpham and Bognor Regis is, or might be, an anti-dog area.

We certainly have no wish to live in an area which is not dog friendly and where our dogs may not be permitted to exercise off the lead.

We are now looking at East Preston and Ferring – a very dog-friendly environment where, in the main, owners seem to be very responsible.

I think the clean streets and waterfront walks prove this to be so.

I would say to those empowered to make such rules in the Bognor Regis area that a vast number of families have a dog.

Most of them choose to holiday in this country so they can include their dog. Alienate those families, and be prepared for a drop in holidaymakers and the large chunk of the revenue they bring.

Shame....

Maureen Ballard, not of Bognor Regis

Arguments for parking fees don't add up - rural locations are special cases

Midhurst residents don't need long memories to recall the last time Chichester District Council considered and temporarily rejected parking charges in our area.

It was only just over two years ago, March 13, 2007 in fact, that CDC's executive board 'agreed to defer consideration of charges in view of the adverse impact they may have on traffic management

as a result of the withdrawal of traffic warden cover (a part-time warden shared with Petworth!)

and the impact of unregulated off-street parking'.

As this was a 'deferment', we shouldn't be surprised the issue has raised its head again so soon, albeit today the rationale for charging seems instead to be economic necessity and unfair subsidy of rural areas through charges levied in Chichester city.

Neither should we be surprised at the notion the 'decision' may

have already been made 'behind our backs' without prior local consultation.

CDC says it's just a proposal to put it to the executive board first so it knows it's worth consulting upon locally. Hmm…. where have I heard that before?

Elizabeth Hamilton is quite right to point out the need for a balanced argument, so here we go.

Firstly, the economic argument doesn't stand up – Midhurst's economy (like everyone else of course) is demonstrably worse than in 2007, thus the need for the Midhurst Vision programme, pumping investment in to boost our local businesses. And we thank CDC and SEEDA for their help.

And the subsidy argument? Yes, by comparison with the city where there frequently isn't a sufficient supply of parking to meet demand and so it has to be rationed by charging, we are subsidised.

But that's nothing new. CDC has always previously recognised the rural situation is completely opposite. We do have enough parking so we don't need rationing by charges.

In its press release in 2007, CDC said it 'will monitor the impact of unregulated off-street parking and measure the impact the new heritage attraction and other developments have on the car parks in the coming months'.

"Our main concern (said Paul Over, CDC head of property services) is the effect the removal

of traffic warden cover will have on Midhurst... the council's aim is to try to ease congestion and enable all visitors a chance of parking in the town. But without control of off-street parking, people could be tempted to park on the main road, causing greater traffic problems, so the council has decided to wait and monitor the situation."

Okay, fair enough, so where are the results of this monitoring and what do they tell us?

The Cowdray attraction hasn't resulted in a devastating shortfall of parking. Neither do we seem to have any more unregulated off-street or main road parking than before and we haven't got our wardens yet.

Surely CDC is now in danger of pre-empting the introduction of wardens? Shouldn't it wait to monitor the actual effect post-introduction? I'd really like to see the results both of this monitoring and the past monitoring we were promised.

I'm against parking charges personally, but as chairman of the Partnership I try to keep an open mind, even though I know the majority of our community are against them.

In 2007, a large group of us stood up at the executive board meeting and won our case. We should do

that again.

Jim Green, Midhurst Community Partnership

I read the Observer with horror at the proposed parking charges for the car parks in Midhurst and Petworth.

I have lived near and shopped in Midhurst for around 60 years and have now reached the start of my

70s and have retired, as have many people around the outskirts of the town and surrounding villages

And this is a privilege we do not want to lose. I shop and buy at least half our shopping each week in the town, and use it at least five days out of seven each week.

I use both car parks, sometimes each day. It could mean a possible charge of up to 300 a year which I and many other pensioners can ill afford, as the minimum charge could possibly be around 1.60 or more per hour.

I for one would stop shopping in the town every day and buy everything at the big supermarkets.

It would be a death knoll for businesses in the town if everyone did the same.

I have talked to many visitors while parking my car and they are surprised there are no charges and all say they will return.

So come on, you councillors in your ivory towers, please listen to the local feeling.

Mr JP Pett, Common View, Stedham, Midhurst

Typically, decisions about Midhurst and parking are being taken without proper consultation.

Does Chichester District Council actually understand the word 'democracy'?

I can understand why Midhurst Town Council is furious after all its work .

Decisions taken seem not to consider the real 'country' towns and villages.

The pathetic comment 'they have got away with it' only emphasised the disconnected view of these

so-called 'servants of the people'.

Living in Milland, our bus service is close to non-existent. We are urged to use our cars less but nevertheless we have to eat and Midhurst is the best place to shop because of the free parking.

If this is removed, then we might as well go to Petersfield or Chichester.

How will decisions be made in future now that we are in a national park? At national park level?

County council? District council?

Or parish level?

Or will it just come down from on high from yet more faceless bureaucrats?

Whatever happened to local people having their own say on their way of life?

David Risley, Milland

I love Midhurst. I love to visit and shop in Midhurst weekly.

As you can see from my address I pass Petersfield to travel to Midhurst.

If parking charges are introduced, I will have to change my allegiance to Petersfield.

BA Gollard, Pine Drive, Clanfield

It's time for major revamp of way our country is run

David Cameron recently stated he wanted to improve the relationship between parliament and the electorate. There are a number of aspects of this relationship which are broken, literally, and ways in which they could be improved.

The current scandal regarding MPs' expenses has only briefly touched upon the whole issue of how much MPs are paid and what they are paid for doing.

The current proposal from the prime minister is these should be decided by an 'independent' body. This body would of course comprise people who are appointed by MPs or some select group of MPs, so this is hardly independent.

The decision on MPs' salaries and expenses should be decided by the electorate. It is not without precedence the 'shareholders' in the great enterprise of Great Britain should vote on the salaries of its 'directors'.

The House of Commons is becoming more and more dominated by career politicians who have no other job than to work for an MP and/or becoming an MP. They depend upon advancement in their chosen career upon the patronage of their superior MPs. Being an MP is not a career.

We need to look for ways of reducing the hold that whips and ministers have over back benchers so debate in the House of Commons is more meaningful. It is striking to see that for the vast majority of time, the House of Commons is largely empty during debates.

The current government introduced legislation which devolved power to Scotland and also to Wales for much of their domestic governance. This was a job half done in that it left the so-called 'Strathclyde question'. MPs elected in Scotland and who sit in the House of Commons vote upon legislation which will not be implemented in their own constituency. This anomaly is being ignored but needs to be resolved.

The current government introduced legislation to reform the House of Lords. While abolishing a large proportion of the hereditary peers, they have failed to complete the reforming process which has left the House of Lords in a state of limbo.

The real problem seems to be there is no clear understanding of what the House of Lords is for.

The second chamber has always been to provide a check upon a government which is not for any reason being held properly to account in the House of Commons.

Governments which have been elected find it extremely frustrating to be held to account. This is, however, the cornerstone of a true democracy.

In my own view, the House of Lords should comprise solely people who have been elected, with a quarter of the total number being elected every four years and would therefore serve for a total of ten years, after which they would not be able to be elected again.

To avoid any conflict with MPs in their relationship with their constituents, members of the House of Lords should be elected on a national vote.

Local government and organisations responsible for delivering services in a local area is a hotpotch of bodies, not all of whom comprise people who are appointed by a popular vote regional assemblies, county councils, district councils and parish councils together with police authorities, NHS trusts and foundations, school academies and boards of governors.

Central governments have, over the years, reduced the authority of elected local government largely because the quality of the governance.

This has been a downward spiral – if the responsibilities are reduced, the quality of people who are attracted is also reduced.

Local government, which is elected by a popular vote, needs to be responsible for the delivery of all state-provided services within their area. By making it a bigger job, people with real talent will be attracted.

There is also the question of how local government is financed. At the present time the largest proportion of local-government finance, even for the limited services for which they are responsible, is provided by central government.

Councillors are being elected to provide services without the power to raise the finance to deliver them. This is hardly democracy.

Central government should quite properly set out policy and standards for the whole country, leaving local government to deliver the services in accordance with those policies. A more equitable arrangement, therefore, would be for central government to provide approximately half of the funding, which would be set each year in the budget at a rate per person, leaving each local authority to set its own 'local tax' to provide whatever additional finance it felt was required to deliver the services.

David Cameron has identified an issue which, like that of expenses, has been lying ignored for many years.

The current crisis provides a unique opportunity to reshape our democracy so the link between the people and those whom they chose to govern is strengthened.

James Cottam, Fernhurst

Hang on, Mr Tyrie, the present parliamentary crisis is all about a large number of bent MPs abusing

their expenses system.

The '19th-century pantomime' actually serves us well when in the hands of honest, public-spirited politicians.

This sudden outpouring of criticism by parliamentary practitioners who have been happy up till now to abide by the traditions and protocol of parliament seems insincere in the extreme.

It looks like another attempt to try to divert attention from the real issue: the extremely low value placed by many MPs on their own integrity and honesty. Or am I being cynical?

An incompetent governing party and an ineffective opposition have wrought an economic disaster on a scale unseen since the 1930s.

Would the few remaining honest politicians in the House kindly get their heads around solving this problem, rather than indulging in navel-gazing?

Steve Haynes, Stoney Place, Runcton

To the point...

What a pity The Warbler (Rother Valley Ramblings, last week) didn't check with The Midhurst Society before criticising it for not noticing the shameful desecration of Midhurst's historic pavements.

The chairman and historian stood looking on in horror as West Sussex County Council workmen raised the old cobbles in Church Hill last summer and threw them on a skip.

In their place they laid York stone slabs and finished the job off with some of the cobbles re-laid round the edge, rather like cherries in a cake!

This was apparently done in response to undertakers' requests for a level surface over which to wheel their trolleys or for carrying coffins into the parish church.

The Midhurst Society immediately contacted the highways department at the West Sussex County Council and was told it had no need to contact the planning department to carry out

such work, and was not interested in responding to our complaint.

Moves are afoot to list all the historic pavements in Midhurst, an action which is obviously very necessary.

Anne Dare, chairman, The Midhurst Society

I would like to thank all members of Petworth Golf Club for their support over the past eight years that I have been their PGA professional. I have been privileged to represent your club wherever I have played both in this country and abroad.

It is with regret I find myself having to look for pastures new. I wish you all good luck and hope the club continues to prosper.

Stephen Hall, Rivermead, Pulborough

We can well understand the confusion that occurred in the reporting of Hilda Saunders' 100th birthday, with all the excitement there was on such an occasion.

But to put matters straight, Eric, her brother, far from not having seen her for many years, has shared a home with her in Midhurst and thanks to carers and others will make regular visits to see Hilda in her delightful new surroundings at Rotherlea.

Thanks to modern technology, Hilda and Erica are able to maintain regular contact with their nieces, who live in Australia.

Alan and Margaret Bloomfield, Fernhurst

Why isn't there a toilet for the public at Chichester bus station?

It is such a nuisance when coming in from Selsey and wanting to go on to somewhere else, only to find you can't use a toilet before you set off.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like one.

One unisex toilet would do, preferably with a baby changing shelf. It could be locked after the last bus

has gone.

Kay Everrett, Broad View, Selsey

On Saturday at 10pm, I was with my son and a friend of his near the beach at Craigweil Lane, Aldwick, when we all saw ten orange lights, all travelling in the same area of sky out to sea at an elevation of about 25 degrees.

All of them were moving from east to west, silently, at a constant speed and height – and in a straight line.

As well as the main orange object, there seemed to be a very short, lighter-coloured tail or trail joined to each light, perhaps up to twice as long as the size of the main light.

Altogether, each object was visible for about 60 to 90 seconds.

Sometimes they were single objects, sometimes they were in groups, one behind the other.

As each object passed by, it remained visible as an orange light for about another 10 to 15 seconds and then fairly quickly became invisible from our position.

In the spring of 2009 I saw and photographed a number of orange lights rising vertically into the sky and disappearing, approximately north to north-east of Aldwick, and at an estimated distance of two to five miles away from me.

It was suggested to me those lights may have been firework-type objects, maybe resembling small hot-air balloons and released in connection with activities in memory of a deceased member of an Eastern religion.

They were also silent, like the lights or objects seen tonight.

John Miller, Chawkmare Coppice, Aldwick

I was amazed to read the article in the Bognor Guardian that Felpham Parish councillors have awarded 7,500 to a range of organisations.

This money is community charge money. What right have they to give it away?

Please don't think I begrudge the organisations, which I am sure provide an invaluable service to certain members of the community.

But I do think 7,500 could have been better spent in the village to the benefit of a wider range of community-charge payers.

Middleton-on-Sea councillors do not make such grants – indeed, they receive much less community charge money from Arun than Felpham, and fund a lot of their work through applying for grants themselves.

I don't want to appear mean, but I honestly think that at this present time, all public figures should be ensuring the public money they are spending is being spent wisely and not as a publicity-gaining stunt. The recipients, who I am sure are most grateful, could apply to various charities for funding.

I really do resent my community charge being misappropriated in this way.

James Clarke, Crossbush Road, Felpham

Now MPs' expenses have been fully exposed, can we have a similar exposure of councillors' expenses?

My grandson tells me that it is perfectly possible to live comfortably on them, without having any paid employment. The only requirement is to attend maybe two or three meetings a month.

AL Elliott, Westminster Drive, Bognor Regis

* Arun's expenses will be available for 2008-09 at the end of June.

I am annoyed and disappointed at the number of people cutting back their hedges at this time of year. The nesting season for garden birds is March to July, bearing in mind many have second broods.

Why, when challenged, do such people say there are no birds nesting in their hedges?

I challenge anyone to know without disturbing the birds, to say nothing of the fledglings sheltering in hedges after leaving their nests.

This week I came across someone who should know better trimming the hedge in the local churchyard.

It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to destroy a bird's nest. Can your hedge not wait another two months before cutting?

Elizabeth Carlton, Barnham

This afternoon I received a phone call from a person who stated: "I am from registered legal services. Have you received any exaggerated bank charges?"

I replied 'no' and I don't want any, with which the caller rang off before I could. I checked 1471 and they had withheld their number.

Is this a scam to obtain bank details?

HS Taylor, Farnhurst Road, Barnham

Stuck in a traffic jam between the roundabouts at Bognor Bridge and Whyke, it suddenly clicked why it is appropriate Chichester is twinned with Chartres.

The latter also has an inadequate ring road punctuated by roundabouts with a jam at each, and, presumably, also has ineffectual local government unable to get a proper bypass funded.

It is quicker to go through either town than round it.

In Chartres, however, household rubbish will be collected two or three times a week.

Jerrold Alexander, Oak Meadow, Birdham

First the EU and the UK government ripped us off – and continue to do so.

Next we find the MPs have been ripping us off for years.

Now Chichester District Council wants to get in on the act by jacking up existing charges for parking and adding new ones in the Witterings and Selsey – and it wants to do it as we plunge deeper and deeper into the worst recession since the 1930s.

What part of 'we've had enough' do these people not understand?

D John Akerman, Clayton Road, Selsey

Some time ago my letter was published praising the singing of a local street performer called Sylvia Rota, at the Market Cross in Chichester.

It is always good to see a city of culture such as Chichester is happy to encourage really good street musicians to perform and I am sure the visitors appreciate it.

You may imagine therefore how distressed I was to learn the opera singer's licence has been revoked by the council and that without it she will be unable to entertain us at the Market Cross.

If this lady had performed on Britain's Got Talent, would she have been treated differently, I wonder?

David S Bell, Shoeburyness, Essex

What do you think? Click here to send a letter or leave a comment below.

Click here to go back to Chichester news

Click here to go back to Bognor Regis news

Click here to go back to Midhurst and Petworth news

To tell us where in the world you are reading this story click on the link below to add yourself to our readers' map.

MAP

• Email to a friend
• Print this page