WHAT’S ON YOUR MIND?
Letter
Hastings Housing Company
Dear HIP,
I write in response to the letter ‘Housing Company Needed’ from 13 August.
Hastings Housing Company Ltd was incorporated on 1 September 2017 and is a wholly owned company of the Council.
Hastings Borough Council has made no decision to liquidate Hastings Housing Company Ltd. At the Cabinet meeting on 22 July 2024 a report was presented that provided an update about the position of the Housing Company and proposed a number of recommendations to implement best practice in the running of the company and to improve governance arrangements. All six recommendations were approved, including one to produce a revised business plan for consideration by the Council. The business plan is to include potential options for the direction of travel for the company including disbanding, enlargement, and alternative uses, for example with the potential to build truly affordable homes. The revised business plan is due to be completed by 31 March 2025, after allowing for a six-to-nine-month period to assess how the management of the company’s portfolio by the Council proceeds. The Housing Company will continue to trade as normal during this time.
Councillor Glenn Haffenden, Lead Councillor for Housing
and Community Wellbeing
Editor’s Note: The original HIP article did not state that HBC had decided to liquidate the HHC, rather that they had commissioned a review.
From our website
Government Mistakes in Housing
The Greens are absolutely right to point out (Housing Targets ‘Ridiculous and Unrealistic’ in HIP 258) the absurdity of this top down approach to providing more housing. The mistake made by successive governments with housing is to think numbers first and quality last, and this has left us with a legacy of expensive and hard-to-maintain housing stock.
From Ronan Point to Grenfell, minimal budgets have led to major mistakes.
The other fundamental mistake in Hastings, though, has been to build too many low-rise, low density, suburban houses from the developer book of standard house plans. Higher density on the right sites can be a good thing, but it requires careful thought and imagination by the developer, the planning authority, and the public.
Another major mistake by government is to continue with the absurdity of separated uses, and allowing retail use on what were meant to be industrial/employment areas, themselves built at very low density.
Land has long been considered as readily available in a town like Hastings. There continues to be a great deal of unused or under-used land in public ownership in Hastings – from Hastings Borough Council to East Sussex County Council, and from Railtrack to the Ministry of Defence – which could be used and must now be seriously reviewed and pursued if both more housing and better housing is to be built.
Kenneth G Davis
Letter
Allowing Dogs Everywhere Is Not Inclusive
Dear HIP
There have been many pro dog articles published by yourselves recently. With the imminent council dog consultation coming up with regard to removing the ban of dogs on parts of the beach, I think it fair to present an alternative view.
I and many others have allergy to dogs, so do not want other people’s dogs near us. When I go to the beach, dogs inevitably run all over where we are sitting, jump up at me or my young child, and owners think this is ok. Unless I am prepared to get into a confrontation, I have to just let this perpetual intrusion that risks my health happen.
If I do ask people to keep their dog away from us, they rarely do, expressing in one way or another that they think it’s ok for their dog to do this. It’s not! It is far from relaxing, and it is not fair. I have to be on constant alert. But I should have the right to choose too.
I choose not to have a dog and not to be close to them, but this choice is taken away from me by dogs and their owners. I also choose to go to the beach where dogs are not allowed, this choice again is taken away by the amount of people who disregard this. Dogs pooing on the beach is also a constant issue, as is dogs fighting, and getting aggressive with each other, again not a very nice vibe for trying to enjoy time at the beach.
It has been portrayed that allowing dogs is inclusive. It is not, it excludes many people: those with allergy, fears, and those that just don’t like dogs, or the constant intrusion of others’ dogs.
An all-year ban on dogs on a part of the beach would be a fair addition to the current debate. The beach, which is a public space, should be a space that is first and foremost inclusive for all people.
Ben Muller
Letter
Importance Of Dog Exclusions
Dear HIP
With regard to Paul McLaughlin’s article Paws for Shores in HIP 257, the Public Space Protection Order regarding dogs on certain sections of beach was simply renewed this year after it was allowed to elapse during Covid. In other words, as in all other coastal towns in Sussex and Kent, in the summer months some beaches are for walking dogs and some are for those who want to enjoy the beach without dogs.
Dogs are allowed on the beach from the west of Hastings Pier to the west end of Bottle Alley and from opposite the Royal Victoria Hotel until the border with Rother (where their restrictions take over). The current consultation concerns the Stade and Rock-a-Nore, as those in the Old Town feel they do not have a beach that is sufficiently near to walk their dogs.
Although the dog lobby may be vocal and loud, there is also a significant group of people who want to enjoy beaches without dogs. Sections of beach where dogs are excluded are important. They enable everyone, and especially children, to play without fear of acquiring zoonotic diseases from dog faeces. They also allow people to enjoy a beach without fear of being harassed and intimidated by uncontrolled dogs, which can be frightening to the elderly, children, and those who do not know if the dog poses a threat, and can lead to stressful interactions with dog owners.
Rowena Rowling
From our website
Combining Attractions
What Ken Davis is proposing (in Embracing Change, HIP 257) in combining three attractions, St Mary-in-the-Castle, Hastings Castle and the Smugglers Caves, makes sense. Two of the three do not survive without subsidies but, combined as attractions, they could prosper. Of course, it would require first-rate marketing and operation; but surely that can be delegated under a Hastings Borough Council nominee project manager?
Bryan Fisher
From our website
Offal On The Menu
I thoroughly enjoyed The Poverty of Modern British Cuisine in HIP 258 as a constructive romp through British cuisine – or the loss of it, maybe.
Just to note that Delia Smith’s books are still on the bestsellers lists after several decades. Although I cannot find a brawn recipe, liver, kidneys and tripe are there if we put the effort in to follow one rather than just watching Masterchef and ordering in fast food. So offal as a real food is at least still possible.
Thanks for the article, I can fully attest to Hungarian cuisine, although the English version of goulash bears no resemblance to the original!
Mark Searle
From our website
Blocking Dropped Kerbs
Penny Pepper – well done for pointing out this issue (Pavements, Potholes and Blocking of Dropped Kerbs in HIP 258). I’ve experienced better traffic warden control of parking at Folkestone, where cars that block a lowered pavement near the council office always get fined. If only it happened everywhere!
Nicola Dalleywater
We would love to hear from you.
[email protected]
facebook.com/hastingsindependent
instagram.com/hastingsindependent
Please be aware we may need to edit letters for reasons of space and we will only withhold names if this is necessary for the protection of the writer
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply