Well-meaning proposals,but think them through

The proposal for a partial lay-by was recently the subject of consultation with residents.

But some of them indicated they were not consulted and the paper simply asked for a '˜yes' or '˜no' answer without explaining all the issues.

The lay-by will cover just 30 per cent of the lane. There will still be single-line traffic on the other 70 per cent.

If cars are allowed to park on the western side of the road opposite the lay-by again, only single-line traffic will be viable, so the traffic problem will not have changed.

There is concern the lay-by will be used by commercial vehicles parking overnight, adding to the disturbance residents already suffer.

The only time there is a problem is at weekends, when football matches are played in the winter months. It seems to many of us that spending 60,000 is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Felpham Parish Council is also considering building a youth shelter on the field.

While this might seem an attractive proposition at first sight, again the ramifications do not seem to have been fully considered.

A shelter for mothers watching their children in the play area might be considered by many long-overdue. However, a '˜youth shelter' use of it at 1am on Sundays by groups of teenagers is not something residents would look forward to.

Throughout the summer months, there is constant vandalism and noise pollution lasting until the early hours of the morning.

Residents used to hope for a wet weekend to deter the groups of youths from congregating.

Last summer the police moved on young people '“ some as young as 12 '“ drinking alcohol, which fuels the disturbance, only for the problem to move to the beach area.

Will a shelter simply give them a location for the early hours?

If the council could have a shelter that could close at dusk, it would have 100 per cent support. To leave it open all night is asking for trouble.

The police admit the field has in recent times had one of the highest levels of 999 calls for noise and vandalism. It is perhaps unfortunate council members do not live within hearing distance of the field, or they might be more sympathetic to the problem.

Many residents who live around the field are only too keen to see further facilities '“ as long as they are used throughout the day.

I have no doubt these are well meaning schemes but they need to have more thought put behind them.

R White, Felpham, Bognor Regis