Coastal Park - draft response

Here is the draft response from the Friends of theDowns to Canterbury City Council's management proposalsfor the newly created QE2 Coastal Park.

We would like all the Friends of the Downs to take the time to read it and let us know what they think - the final version has to get to CCC by the end of November.

You can download the document by clicking HERE.

The Executive Summary:

• The Vision for the Coastal Park does not provide any clarity about what the Park is for and what it is intended to become. We suggest:

“To develop a Coastal Park that appeals to a wide range of residents and visitors by offering a variety of high quality seaside experiences – traditional; sporting; unspoilt and natural – in one beautifully integrated seven kilometre stretch of coast.”

• We should emphasise that the Park offers “something for everyone” by integrating the entire Park without detracting from the distinctly different experiences and mood that the three distinct sections of the Park has to offer - developed coast with beach huts in West Bay; retail coast in the central area; natural coast in the Downs and in Reculver Country Park.
• This is a great opportunity to remove or re-site some of the “visual clutter” - signs, bins, benches - on the Downs and replace it with low-key, consistent signage and well-placed amenities.
• We are concerned by the suggestion to “provide car parking near the King’s Hall” - we would like to see more information about where and how this would be achieved.
• The maintenance of the Downs should not involve pesticides or herbicides.
• We present on page 10 of this response a detailed SWOT analysis for the Downs as part of the Park.
• Much of the draft Plan is already work in progress or work that is planned by the Council. There is surprisingly little scope for community contributions.
• The special scientific and ecological importance of the Downs has been under-stated, when its natural richness should be emphasised.
• The idea of grass cutting on the lower slopes between Beltinge and Hillborough is not a recommendation from KWT, it is merely a suggestion - the Friends will examine it more closely to see if it is worth progressing. Action L14 should be replaced with:

“Research the wildlife implications of a change to the cutting regime at the rear of the promenade at Beltinge and Hillborough and decide whether there would be any benefit in making such a change

• Similarly L15 should be replaced with:

“Research the wildlife implications of managing the scrub on the lower slope and decide what the best management approach would be”.

---

QEII Management Plan - FotD Draft Response

URGENT: Beach hut threat

Beach Hut Option Appraisal Report 2011

Here we go again! Despite the massive support for the Village Green application, and the clear message that Herne Bay wants the Downs unspoilt, the Council is thinking of putting up beach huts.

The consultation process is described below - the first step will be a debate at HBAMP (the Herne Bay Area Members Panel, i.e. our town councillors) on 14th June at 6:30pm in the Salvation Army Hall, 33 Richmond Street, Herne Bay.

I won't be able to be at that meeting. I think it is very important that SOMEONE is there (ideally, lots of someones!) to put the case for NOT having beach huts on the Downs.

You are entitled to make a short (3 minute) speech at HBAMP. You won't be cross-examined - you just say your piece and sit down. I'm happy to provide you with facts and arguments, or even write a short speech for you to modify and make your own - just contact me at FriendsOfTheDowns@gmail.com

If you want to do it all under your own steam, just contact Lyn McDaid,  email: lynda.mcdaid@canterbury.gov.uk tel: 01227 862006.

This is your chance to stand up and make your voice heard. Literally.

---

The Report

Personally, I find it in many ways unimpressive and disappointing, but that's a story for another day. You can read the report online here, or you can download it here, or you can visit the Council website. The key parts are:

• Sections 3.4 to 3.8 - the current position in Herne Bay,
• Section 4 - the Process, 
• Section 9 - the Assessment Matrix and Scoring, 
• Sections 11.2 to 11.6 - the sites that have been assessed as potential beach hut sites, 
• Section 12.2 - SWOT analysis issues
• Section 13.1 - the potential sites, prioritised
• Section 14 - next steps

---

The Potential Sites on the Downs

The concrete plinths at the bottom of the Hundred Steps.

Site assessment and SWOT analysis: you can read it online here, or download it here.

The upper level of the promenade, a little further east of the Hundred Steps.

Site assessment and SWOT analysis: you can read it online here, or download it here.

---

Consultation Process

• This is a consultative draft for discussion, which will be debated at the Herne Bay Area Members Panel on 14th June 2011.
• The community steering group seeks our views on the report and the recommendations for further feasibility work by Monday 4th July 2011.
• The feedback from the community and comments from the Area Members Panel meeting will feed into a report to the Council’s Executive meeting on the 28th July 2011 to decide a way forward.
• If feasibility studies are required the aim will be to bring forward feasibility reports for consultation by the end of 2011 or early 2012.

Signage for the Downage has arrived!

The long-awaited information panels have arrived on the Downs. These have been nearly two years in the making, with the world at large getting a peek in the last couple of months. Here are the "before and after consultation" versions of the panels and below them, for what it's worth, is what I sent the nice people at CCC.

Click any of the pictures to see a bigger version.

click it to big it

click it to big itclick it to big itclick it to big it

click it to big it

click it to big it

---

Here's some thoughts on the panels:

Orientation

• Do not have just one copy of this on The Downs. There should be copies at 1, 3, 4 and 8 - even if only A4 or A3 in the existing noticeboards, to encourage people to come and have a look.
• I understand what you're trying to do with the background photo, but it could be confusing for visitors.
• On the map at the bottom, the colours seem to have been reversed: it should be green for The Downs, and grey (or residential splodges) to show where the housing is. At the moment, Herne Bay appears to consist of green fields running up to a concrete strip next to the sea!
• The map should show the main paths on The Downs and the Promenade, so that people know they can actually get to all the places shown.
• If the numbered dots on the map aren't going to be arranged to scale (putting Reculver off the right of the map!), they should be in the correct relative positions, i.e. Bishopstone Glen to the right of You Are Here.
• An indication of the distance, especially to Bishopstone and Reculver, would be helpful.
• PLEASE increase the size of the text.
• Space can be reclaimed from the top and bottom of the panel, allowing more height for the 8 text boxes, and the boxes can run wider across the panel. This would allow for the all-important text to be readably large - as it is, it's simply too small, given the space available.
• (Box 1) I'm sure you can find a better picture of the Pier.
• (Box 2) The clocktower is 75 feet (23m) TALL. Free-standing is usually hyphenated.
• (Box 3) In the heading: Neptunes Arm. In the text Neptune's arm. Correctly, both should be: Neptune's Arm.
• (Box 4) King's Hall has an apostrophe.
• (Box 7) There's no need to repeat "Bishopstone Glen" in the text.
• (Box 8) There's no need to repeat "Reculver Towers" in the text.

Wildlife

• The Downs are seething with nature, and it's hard to know which bits to choose. Personally, I would swap the Chiff-Chaff for a Kestrel - people are more likely to notice a kestrel and wonder what they're looking at.
• I would like to see the Slow-worm get a look-in - it's an endangered species, we're lucky to have it, and we should be proud of it.
• Coastal wildlife section: 2nd paragraph "habitats. chiff-chaff" should be "habitats. Chiff-chaff" and in the next sentence chiff-chaff should be hyphenated.
• Bishopstone Glen: don't just repeat what's appeared on the Orientation Panel - say something additional and wildlife-y about it, like its distinctive insect life.
• Bishopstone Glen: rather than a picture that doesn't even show the Glen, have a picture looking up (or down) the glen, so people can see what an odd and interesting place it is: attached.
• The description of the Miramar landslip is confusing.
• Pictures, or at least line drawings, of the plants mentioned would be much more useful than the very brief descriptions.
• About one-third of this panel is wasted on pictures of what people can already easily see, just by glancing away from the panel - use it instead for wildlife identification pictures and/or wildlife info.

Heritage

• I like this - it gives a feel for the range of history in Herne Bay. Easily the best of the three panels.
• I think the Hundred Steps, George & Mary Seat, and the Barnes Wallis statue should be marked on the Orientation Panel.
• The Bouncing Bomb section should mention that it was tested just along the coast at Reculver - otherwise it looks like the statue is our only link to the Dambusters.
• There MUST be a clear message directing people to the Herne Bay Museum (for example in the white space under the bouncing bomb paragraph). I've had an email from Margaret Burns saying that she cannot see any objection to including a reference to the Museum.

Current position

On 1st September 2009, I went to Kent County Council HQ in Maidstone and lodged an application to register The Downs in Herne Bay as a new Town Green. At the time we had 569 witness statements supporting the application - we now have 1,119. KCC are the "registering authority" for village and town greens - it's down to them to decide whether to accept the application, to assess any objections, and to determine how to proceed.

KCC accepted the application (now known as VGA614), and it has been sitting in the queue, quietly waiting its turn for the last 6 months. KCC advertised the application on 1st April (!) in the Kentish Gazette, starting a 6 week consultation process.



"Consultation"

click it to big it

In case you missed it (as most people did), here is what seems to be the full extent of CCC's public consultation. This was in the Public Notices section of the Herne Bay Gazette. In real life it measures 10cm x 12cm.

"... a small number of new beach huts ... " turns out to be 40. I had never thought of forty as a small number before.

Open question to CCC

Why use the back pages in a small circulation, paid-for paper for your "consultation"?

• It puts a cost barrier between your public and their democracy.
• It guarantees that the majority of your public won't have access to it, or be aware of it.
• The inevitably small number of objections can be mistaken for lack of opposition.
• It does no more than meet your bare minimum legal obligations.

Or have I just answered my own question?