Pending rant

(Email sent 27th Jan 2009 to Herne Bay Gazette, for publication. Still unpublished. I am desolated.)

East Cliff beach Huts: illegal, immoral, unnecessary, unwanted and unwise.

Illegal?
A legal covenant on this land means that, by law, the Council must “keep the land as an open space and pleasure ground for the recreation and use and enjoyment of the public forever”. Privately owned beach huts aren’t open space, and aren’t for public use.

Immoral!
The people who gifted this land trusted the Council to do right by them. Carving it up for developers betrays that trust. One percent of the people I’ve spoken to knew about this plan. The Council has not consulted adequately, and does not have our permission – this is an anti-democratic abuse of power.

Unnecessary:
There’s already planning permission for about 50 huts elsewhere in Herne Bay, Tankerton and Whitstable.

Unwanted:
There’s already more supply than demand: there is no waiting list for huts. There aren’t crowds of people saying ‘Yes’ to huts at East Cliff, but there are plenty saying ‘No’.

Unwise:
The last lot of huts (on exactly this site) became so vandalised and derelict that the Council had to demolish them. The unstable slopes at East Cliff have been expensively strengthened and drained – smashing them about for building work is just daft.

The Council are trying to do the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Beach huts are a bit like Marmite – some people love them, some people hate them and some aren’t that fussed. But for me, this isn’t about huts, it’s about keeping The Downs open and free, forever.

Standing up and speaking out

My first public act of flagrant democratic intercourse, beyond voting, that is: a speech to CCC, 15th Jan 2009.

This proposal is unwanted, unneeded and ill-conceived. You are proposing to act without the permission, and against the wishes, of those you serve. The Downs is a Public Open Space, entrusted by the people of Herne Bay to the Council to be enjoyed by all, in perpetuity.

One legal covenant says it must be:

“… kept as an open space and pleasure ground for the recreation, and use, and enjoyment of the public forever”.

In the hands of a private developer it won’t be. Another covenant says that:

“… nothing shall be erected or built on the land as shall obstruct the view of any of the houses known as the Beacon Hill estate, and the Lees estate, and the land fronting to Beacon Hill”.

These huts would obstruct the view.

There have been huts at East Cliff before.
• Originally they were concrete and brick structures built into the bottom of the slope; with nothing on the slope; with no views obstructed; and were owned and managed by the Council.
• Later, wooden huts were built on the slope, and obstructing the view: they fell into disuse, were neglected and vandalised to the point of dereliction, and the Council demolished them.

The Government’s Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) states:

• existing Open Space should not be built on unless it is clearly shown to be surplus to requirements.

This is not.

• developers of Open Spaces must consult the community and be able to demonstrate that their proposals are widely supported by them.

These are not.

We are at (or near) the bottom of a property cycle, making this is a particularly awful time to be disposing of land. The intention to lease the land to a private developer has raised widespread concerns about accountability for maintenance, hygiene and security.

There’s already permission for 44-67 more huts elsewhere in Herne Bay, Whitstable and Tankerton. Currently, Whitstable’s reining in development due to lower than usual occupancy, and having no waiting list. There is no waiting list for the existing huts in Herne Bay. There is an over-supply of huts, and there is no demand for huts at East Cliff.

It is very unlikely that the proposed huts will significantly help regenerate Herne Bay, as has been suggested. The hutters bring their own supplies - far from the pub and further from the shops, they will be hard-pressed to spend money on anything.

With the nearest loo ¼ mile away at the King’s Hall, some people will take the lazy option and use the sea: so much for our Blue Flag beach status. The proposed site borders the Thanet Coast SSSI and is a RAMSAR and SAC site of national and international importance to wildlife. The Council is expected to conserve and enhance the SSSI - this proposal does neither. The land is also home to slow worms (a protected species) which will be put at risk – Kent Wildlife Trust have expressed concern.

The East Cliff is special because it is quiet, peaceful and undeveloped. It is unstable scrubland, where both the land and the huts will need protection from landslip and in dry summers, fire. The nearest parking (on Beacon Hill) is fully parked in the summer as it is: where will the extra cars go?

The “consultation” over this change in the legal status of a Public Open Space seems to have consisted of a small ad in a local paper which is read by less than 10% of Herne Bay’s population . There is strong and widespread local opposition, and of the 135 signatories on this petition, only 2 were already aware of this proposal – clearly the public consultation process has been woefully inadequate.

You are proposing to act without the permission, and against the wishes, of those you serve. For more than a 100 years the people of Herne Bay have, in all good faith, entrusted their land to you. This proposal betrays that trust.

Pitiful consultation, objections ignored, full steam ahead!

By the time I got to find out about the proposal to develop beach huts on the Downs (mid-December 2008) the Council seemed to be regarding it as pretty much a done deal. It had been "resolved" by the Executive, and the wheels had been put in motion. The site was being marketed; closing date for bids was late January; contract to be awarded soon after, with a view to having the huts ready for the 2009 summer season.

It was about this time that I started getting shocked and angry, and re-shocked and re-angry on a daily basis.

The Council's total effort at "consultation" consisted of a small ad in the Public Notices section at the back of the Herne Bay Gazette. The Gazette (long may their organ prosper) has taken a healthy interest in this embryonic campaign, for which I am pleased and grateful. However, when all's said and done, their circulation amounts to less than 10% of Herne Bay's population, and only a few people actually read the Public Notices. In fact, out of all the people who signed the petition, only TWO had heard of the proposal (and one of them is a Councillor) amounting to about 1%.

Yes, dear reader, ONE PERCENT awareness amounts to effective public consultation in the hive-mind of CCC, and even that produced five objections (and no approvals). The objections were noted and then dismissed by the Executive who "resolved" to go ahead.

Now, this is one of the many areas that I need to understand better. I get the impression that once anything has been "resolved" by the Executive, it appears that they regard it as unchangeable and eternal, as if written on tablets of stone. I detect delusions of God-hood in the hive-mind. They seem to think that each and every decision they take is irreversible, regardless of whatever else may change in the real world around them.

So far there has been no pause for thought, no double-take, no head scratching, no notice taken of the sudden huge increase in objections. There has been no recognition, acceptance or regret that their preferred method of "consultation" is evidently woefully inadequate.

At the time of writing (Jan 27th, 2009), if everything's running to timetable, all the bids are now in and CCC are picking the winner. The winning bidder will then apply to CCC for planning permission to go ahead with their winning bid. I assume CCC will support the planning application from the bid they chose.

Neat.

The threat to the Downs

To set the scene: People have been walking, running, playing, dog-walking, kite-flying and just sitting on The Downs for hundreds of years. It's a nicely unkempt, tapering strip of land that runs east from Herne Bay to Reculver Country Park, sloping down from the sunlit uplands to the exceptionally shiny shingle of the north Kent coast.

Long, long ago, most of what is now The Downs was part of the Beltinge Estate (map), owned by Thomas Dence. With the passing years, the Beltinge Estate was broken into smaller parcels, and around the beginning of the last century this patchwork of land passed into the care of Herne Bay Urban District Council (later transformed by an evil spell into CCC).

When the Council was entrusted with this land, there were conditions (covenants) attached, spelling out what must be done with the land, what could be done with the land, and what mustn't be done with the land. I have highlighted the bits that give me a warm feeling:

"Covenant by Council to keep the land as an open space and pleasure ground for the recreation and use and enjoyment of the public for ever subject to such rules and regulations as the Council their successors and assigns may from time to time make respecting the use and enjoyment of the same with power nevertheless to construct and maintain thereon such shelters seats bandstands kiosks and underground lavatories or conveniences and other buildings and erections suitable or convenient for the use and enjoyment of the said lands and heriditaments as an open space and pleasure ground as the Council shall from time to time think fit but nothing shall be erected built placed or allowed to remain on the said land as shall obstruct the view of any of the houses built or to be built on the two Estates now known as Beacon Hill Estate and The Lees Estate and the land fronting to Beacon Hill and lying between Hilltop Road and Bellevue Road."

(Full stop keys don't get much wear and tear on an average legal keyboard.) So the Council is supposed to be looking after the land, keeping it as an open space for the public, and adding nothing that blocks the view (unless it's a 'something-for-everybody' kind of structure, like the examples given). So far, so good. However...

Towards the end of last year, CCC decided in favour of "the disposal of a small part of the coastal slopes by the granting of a lease of a site for the provision of high quality beach huts".

There have been huts at East Cliff before. Originally they were concrete and brick structures built into the bottom of the slope; with nothing on the slope; with no views obstructed; and were owned and managed by the Council. Later, wooden huts were built on the slope, and obstructing the view: they fell into disuse, were neglected and vandalised to the point of dereliction (photos), and the Council demolished them.