Reprieve for The Downs

It's been a long time coming, but the penny has finally dropped. The unloved and unlovely development plans for the Downs are being ditched on the recommendation of the council's Leisure people.

This should be confirmed at the meeting of the Executive on 12th August at 6:30pm in The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury - it's a public meeting, so do feel free to pop in. The highlights of the report to the Executive are:

• To note the Council objection to the Village Green application.
• To discard the proposed beach hut project previously approved 8th December 2008 due to further research highlighting coastal protection concerns.
• To reinstate the area highlighted in appendix A as public open space to be held under the Public Health Act 1875.
• To support the community environmental enhancement project whilst recognising that the primary purpose of the area is coastal protection.

As you will see from the Council's own telling of the story in the report, this long and wasteful episode could have been avoided if the Council's in-house experts had been consulted and heeded at the outset.

Personally, I'm still curious to discover whose idea this was in the first place, and how it could have been allowed to drag on for so long despite being impractical and unworkable. Again personally, I am disappointed (verging on disgusted) that there is no acceptance, or even acknowledgement, on the Council's part that this proposal was hugely unpopular from the very beginning.

Anyway, it's a cracking result that we can all take pleasure and pride in.

Well done and thank you.

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?

Patience is a virtue

Eight weeks ago the Executive were alerted to their imminent criminality. I replaced my blood with espresso to ready myself for the frenetic pace of their response. They wondered. Legal pondered. Time dragged. I could have saved myself a fortune in coffee bills: I should have got some decent time-lapse photography kit.

From which you will have gathered that not a lot has happened. But I am neither perturbed nor dismayed, because I went to The Great Exhibition at the King’s Hall. CCC treated us to their vision of our future, in the form of the Area Action Plan. This consists of 10 objectives, the last (but by no means least) of which focuses on their conservation credentials and environmental ambitions:

“Located to the East of Herne Bay town centre are sites of exceptional importance in respect of rare, endangered or vulnerable natural habitats and species within a European context. They consist of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) that seek to protect wild fauna and flora and Special Protection Areas (SPA) which seek to protect wild birds.”

Joy of joys! A clear and simple reason not to allow private development of public open space. If they’re half-way serious about this, there’s absolutely no need to involve lawyers (always a good thing). Instead, we can all just concentrate on the fact that we’ve got an accessible piece of semi-wild land that should be conserved. I’ve been finding out about Duncan Down in Whitstable – seems to be a very good model to work from.

As my spell-checker confirms: hop sprigs eternal in the hum an beast.