1,100 sign up to save The Downs

Village green designation demanded for beauty spot

CAMPAIGNERS are preparing to do battle over the future of a Herne Bay beauty spot. More than 1,100 people are backing an application to give formal protection to The Downs by registering it as a village green, meaning no development would be allowed. The campaign was sparked by an application to build 40 beach huts near the Kings Hall.

Kent County Council bosses are now considering the request, and the accompanying 1,181 statements of support, but Canterbury City Council officials said they would oppose the request, because it would stop essential maintenance work in the area. Part of the area has already lost its designation as public open space, to allow the beach huts to be built.

Steve Lockwood, of the Save Our Downs Campaign, said:

"The whole campaign team has been amazed by the strength of feeling local people have about The Downs and how fired up they are to protect it. Village green status will protect this land forever so that everyone in the town can carry on using all of it just as we do today – freely and free of charge. It wouldn't cost the council a penny to make The Downs a village green. It would be such a shame if the council chose to ignore local opinion and refused to give The Downs the protection that Herne Bay people want it to have."

Supporters believe their application could be the largest ever considered by councillors because of the number of accompanying statements, and more than 95 per cent of people backing the bid are from Herne Bay. Campaign coordinator Phil Rose said:

"The Downs is a much-loved and well-used part of Herne Bay life, and has been for decades. The people who sent us statements have been using The Downs for a total of 27,750 years! The longest period of use that someone told us about is 86 years, and even the average is 24 years. This land has been close to the town's heart for generations."

He urged people to contact Canterbury City Council chief executive Colin Carmichael to urge him to support the application. But Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, a member of Canterbury City Council's ruling executive committee, said the decision would not be that simple. He said:

"Village green status would mean we could not carry out essential maintenance of the area without asking the Secretary of State for permission. It's a technicality but it's important. The Downs was never under threat but the campaigners have a bee in their bonnet and they are entitled to do this. We all want Herne Bay to thrive but I believe that has to be based on tourism and the only way to do that is to attract more people to the town by making it interesting. The beach huts would have helped to do that."

HB Times 2010-04-08

It's like pulling hen's teeth

Apologies for the mixed metaphor, but getting a straight answer out of CCC is slow and painful, and results are few and far between. Here's a case in point: the forces of Mordor (aka Canterbury City Council) have fixed their beady little eyes on a slice of The Downs, with a view to turning a fast buck. Before they can start developing it, they had to strip it of its Public Open Space status, even though it's in a ward which their own Open Spaces analysis describes as having a dearth of recreational open space. What they overlooked in their unseemly dash for cash was national Planning Policy Guideline 17 (PPG17), which requires them to identify and supply suitable replacement land.

An inquisitive local resident wrote to Cllr Vickery-Jones, who is the portfolio holder for foreshore, beaches and beach huts:

When will the Council (finally) start addressing its responsibility to provide a suitable and matching replacement for the land it stripped of Public Open Space designation over a year ago? (A duty under PPG17.)

And this is what came back:

This question is interesting as it raises issues such as proportionality. To explain that I must tell you that in my view Councillors have a duty to act without regard for the ballot box, of course they carry an obligation to listen to all residents but they also have a duty to look at the needs of other residents who do not normally raise their voices until the opportunity is lost. I do not and will not ever let people down because I have not been robust in exploring any and all opportunities to improve the ability of Herne Bay to thrive again, even though I am criticised for it. How anyone can ever take the view that this proposal is anything but good for our town, frankly is beyond me.

Our town where 70p in every £1 is spent elsewhere, where our kids can't stay because there is little work and where the average wage is £11,000. Who can possibly live on that? My daughter is 14, you may well have young people in your family, where is their future?  I have a duty to provide for their needs as well, as best I can.

I am aware that there are quite a few people who have signed a petition against this proposal, however I am also aware that there has been many scare stories circulated which did not provide the full picture. The Downs have never been under threat from this proposal, no one has ever played cricket or football on the area in question nor has any one flown a kite or even walked their dog unless they suffered being torn to bits by the brambles, the cliff is subject to movement which is the reason that very large rain water drains are installed in that particular area. In all this area is totally unsuitable for any of the activities claimed and would only sustain temporary and light structures such as Beach Huts.

Lib Dem Rob Bright stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the local paper because this matter was never 'Political' it was always about what was perceived as being the best for all of Herne Bay. We have the same passion for Herne Bay as you obviously do, we only differ in that you can afford to be very 'local' whereas we councillors cannot, simply because we have to take a 'broader' view, such as what is good for the whole town.

You state that you are an independent individual which gives me some hope that you may take an objective view and with that some better understanding of the issues.

These are entirely my personal views and should be considered in that light, they give a true and accurate of the way I see the matter. if I can assist you further please do not hesitate to contact me, my only request is that you do not ask the same questions as I have answered these, using the sum total of my knowledge.

Load of cock, if you ask me.

Councillors break oath of silence

There's much rib-tickling japery in the current HB Times. I'm tempted to start up a TV show called "Councillors say the funniest things" which would feature elected representatives trying to keep a straight face while spouting nonsense, distortions, half-truths, non sequitors and unsupported assertions. Some of our guys must be up to national standard.

Except for the current plans for The Downs, which the CCC Executive Committee made CONFIDENTIAL in July. Cllr Vickery-Jones sits on that Committee. He voted to make these plans CONFIDENTIAL, yet he now insists there are no secret plans. "There are no secret plans" - says the man who made the current development plans CONFIDENTIAL! If the plans aren't secret, would Cllr Vickery-Jones release them to the HB Times for publication, or put them on display in the Council Offices in Herne Bay? Or maybe there's a subtle distinction between 'secret' and 'confidential' that I'm missing.

First I've heard of this, although the Council did try to pull this stunt sometime in the 1960s, so I'm told. This may be nothing more than a straw man, that they put up just to knock down.

Obviously, it would be easier to get more facts if the Executive (which includes Cllr Vickery-Jones) hadn't made them all CONFIDENTIAL. Neither Councillor actually identifies any of the 'misinformation' they say has been spread. There is no misinformation on the leaflet, just facts.

Oh, how I laughed! We have spoken to ALL the Councillors at least once. In January 2009 we were in email contact with Cllr Vickery-Jones, when we had to explain to him exactly where the beach huts going to be sited - on the grassy slopes, not the concrete path as he had mistakenly thought. So much for getting your facts straight!

Just to straighten up a few other facts: as well as the email exchange (available at your request) with Cllr Vickery-Jones, there was at least one lengthy phone call in January 2009; we have presented a speech and 135-signature petition to full Council; we have twice addressed the Executive Committee (Cllr Vickery-Jones was present on both occasions); and we have fruitlessly asked for information from Council officers, who were gagged by the Executive's CONFIDENTIALITY order.

This isn't about beach huts, it's about saving The Downs.

What's got so many people in Herne Bay so riled is that the Council even thinks it can touch The Downs. Cllr Vickery-Jones is right about the legal covenants - they say that The Downs must be kept as an open space and pleasure ground for all the people of Herne Bay forever. So why has the Council even started de-designating bits of it?

This the Council's current favourite cover story for the development - it's replacing or reinstating the wooden beach huts that were there before. Oops! The earlier beach huts were in breach of the legal covenants on the land. They were illegal. The proposed beach huts would also be illegal. It would be a repeat offence!

N.B. All snippets were snipped from the HB Times 16th September 2009, front page and page 3.

Open to Interpretation

Wouldn't you know it? Nothing for ages, and then a flurry. Canterbury City Council have finally produced their Draft Open Spaces Strategy, and a rattling good read it is.

Section 5 has some good stuff in it:

Sage words. Fine words. Dear reader, imagine my consternation and disappointment when I found this, tucked away in a far distant Appendix:

Despite the King's Hall slopes and The Downs being 'existing open spaces', CCC are proposing to develop some kind of 'interpretation project', defeating the aims and objectives of their declared Strategic Vision. I must admit to being somewhat mollified by this proposal being equal 14th in a prioritised list of 17 to be spread over the next 5 years. Time enough, I thought rashly, to persuade CCC of their folly. Hey ho.

On the Agenda for the CCC Executive's meeting for the 30th July, a frustratingly secret item:The standard excuse for excluding the press and public from the sausage-making ugliness of Councillors in action is that there is some kind of commercial confidentiality at stake. (Remind me, whose money is it that they're spending?) So what's going on?

In the beginning, so rumour has it, A Developer approached A Councillor and convinced her/him that The Downs was ripe for development. Said Councillor presented the idea to the Council. The Hive-mind cried "Desist! The constraints of good governance, that chafe us so, compel us to solicit competitive bids - this cannot be seen to be a stitch-up or shoo-in!".

There was some hasty tendering, and all looked set fair to continue as originally planned. Oops! Local irritants highlighted the illegality of breaching the covenants on the land. CCC's legal advisers told them all was well. The Irritants pointed out that they were mistaken. Everything went quiet, supposedly while the legal position was examined more closely. Suddenly, the proposal re-surfaces, although shrouded in secrecy.

My interpretation is:

• through poor legal advice, or sheer bravado, or blind greed, CCC has convinced itself that commercial development of The Downs is not illegal;
• they have received proposals that they believe circumvent the restrictions stated in the legal covenants that came with the land when it passed to them;
• CCC will want to impose their preferred bidder, regardless of the legality, or the local opposition.

I look forward to finding out exactly how My Council proposes to spend My Money, defiling My Town. Personally, I believe that Councillors who wilfully pursue an illegal course of action should be responsible for any and all costs that arise. Once upon a time, they would have been - it was called surcharging.

Instant torpor

Dear reader, how I have missed our little tête-à-têtes. Or more strictly speaking, doigts-aux-yeux, but that sounds much less cosy. There has been a deathly quiet from the general direction of Canterbury City Council's Lethal and Demagogic Dept. But I have news! There will be nothing happening for a little bit longer. Officially.

I was so twirled by the giddying pace of events I had to sit down and do some calming maths.

From the moment I reared my ugly head and warned CCC that there were covenants on the land they wanted to misuse, to the time a memo appeared from Legal & Democratic Services saying everything was fine, took a grand total of SEVEN DAYS. This exemplifies the speed of mind and action that I am pleased to see from the (public) lawyers I am funding with my Council Tax. Not single-handedly funding in their entirety, I accept, but there's got to be a couple of legal pads with my name on.

But now, a disappointing contrast. It's been SEVENTY-FIVE days since Mrs Activist and I put the frighteners on the Executive by explaining that they were dabbling on the fringes of criminality. For 2½ months the Execs have been drifting inexorably towards a life of ASBOs, glue-sniffing, electronic tags, incomprehensible street slang and drab ill-fitting hoodies while the lawyers just stand by and watch. It makes me feel so helpless. Is there nothing we can do to save these rough diamonds from the downward spiral that starts with property crime and ends with the electric chair blanket?

My trusty informant tells me that there is little or no chance of the proposed East Cliff Annexation being dealt with before the next Executive meeting on June 8th, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE days after their second written warning. Please, please, would someone from L&D Services put the Westgate Eight straight before they blot their copybooks and blight their futures through a silly high-spirited mistake?