PATHS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 74, 29 March 1939, Page 10

PATHS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Will you kindly allow me space to join with "R.L.S." in defence of the Eastbourne sandhills. While a good deal of what your other correspondent, '"Sans Peur," has written is sound, on the question of the sandhills he is hopelessly out of touch with Eastbourne opinion. It is certainly not correct to say that the clearing away of the sandhills south of the wharf is acknowledged by all as a great improvement. On the contrary, this act of desecration has been universally deplored. It is difficult to imagine why anyone should prefer a barren waste of yellow, rotten rock to the gentle undulating slopes of the sandhills, providing on the sea side facilities for sun-bathing and on the land side a level green area merging into grassy slopes with sheltered bays. Their destruction has robbed the children of a safe and happy playground and residents and visitors, especially mothers with young children, of one of the few remaining places near the beach, or, in fact, anywhere in Eastbourne, where some shelter could be obtained from the blast of summer northerlies. Furthermore, these particular sandhills have provided protection to neighbouring residents against the sanddrift nuisance which has affected the more southern portion of the beach. From all practical points of view their tragic demise has been ruthless and unnecessary. In addition to their practical value, the sandhills had a certain rugged beauty which gave pleasure to a large proportion of residents and visitors.

The same virtues attach to the sandhills north of the wharf and steps should be taken now to ensure that they are protected.

If the same amount of energy as has been applied to the destruction of the sandhills could be directed to the provision of fundamental services, Eastbourne would rapidly become a model borough. It would then, for instance, be unnecessary for mothers with perambulators to risk life and limb on the highway, as they do now, in order to avoid the travel problems neglected footpaths present.

With regard to the remarks of "Sans Peur" in connection with the fishermen, they have in the past been too lax in .the execution of the responsibility of disposing of the rejected catch, and steps should be taken to see that the position is rectified. It is important, however, to ensure that fishermen's traditional rights with respect to the use of the beach are respected. As hard-working food producers rendering a valuable service to the community, they are entitled to every possible consideration and to active co-operation in the conduct of their industry.—l am, etc..

R.B.G,