Whose baby?

By popular demand, here's the potted life history of CCC's Unlawful Shameful Proposal. (See "Timeline" for full dates and details.)

• The USP appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, in autumn 2008.
• The Herne Bay Councillors supported it, and told the Executive.
• The Executive liked it, published their public notice as "consultation", and waited to see if there were any objections.
• The objections were disregarded and the site was marketed.
• Around this time, I was made aware of the unfolding horror, and went to speak to the Council, armed with a sturdy petition. One of the questions I raised was the legality of the proposal.
• The Council's own legal eagles have said it's OK, but I'm convinced they're wrong.
• The Executive have been told that it's illegal, and they're having a bit of a think before reporting back to full Council.

That's all well and good as far as it goes, BUT it doesn't answer a key question:  Where was this evil hatchling spawned?

I can find no mention of it on the CCC website before 23rd September last year. There are several policy documents with an optimistic, broad-brush approach to conservation, tourism and regeneration, but none of them single out this particular strip of green. So where did this idea come from? Who has ownership?

Whose proposal is it?

Speech to Executive 5th Feb 2009

My fine and beloved woman addressed the Executive Committee meeting yesterday, and left them looking restless and nervous, ready to bolt. This is what she said:

We have taken advice from a partner in a London law firm who specialises exclusively in planning law. We gave him the Land Registry entry and a link to Google maps so he could see the land. We told him: “The Council plans to lease part of this plot to a private developer. That developer will then build beach huts on the plot which will either be sold on the open market (leasehold, I imagine) or rented.”

His legal advice follows...

Q: Is what the council intends to do in accord with the idea that this is an open space?
A: No - the OCE provided makes it clear that the land is to be kept as an open space (subject to suitable buildings for the public use/enjoyment of the land). [OCE is an Official Copy of the land title from the Land Registry.]

Q: What does the council need to do to change the status of a piece of land that is open space so that it can dispose of it for development?
A: The Council needs to apply to the Land Registry to remove the covenant from the title. This is very difficult to do and the Council would need a very good reason to do so and not just for commercial development.

Q: Is the involvement of a private developer and the possible sale of beach huts to private individuals in accord with the idea that this land should be kept for public use?
A: No.

Q: The council put up beach huts nearby years ago to let to the public on a seasonal basis. That would seem to be keeping it all public?
A: Correct.

Q: Is a private developer a different thing altogether?
A: Yes.

Q: What does “obstruct the view” in C1 mean?
A: "Obstruct the view" would mean materially impact upon the visual amenity…. I would think constructing beach huts here would obstruct the view.

Your legal advice from Mrs Trevett is flawed. It repeats but doesn’t deal with the covenant that says the land is to be “an open space … for … the public for ever”. Leasing land to a private developer then selling or renting beach huts to people for their sole use keeps the land neither open nor public.

Your advice says that, if the beach huts aren’t high enough to obscure the views of 49 to 60 Beacon Hill, the council won’t be in breach. This is not what the covenant says. It says that nothing “shall obstruct the view of any of the houses…on… the Beacon Hill estate and the Lees Estate and the land fronting to Beacon Hill and lying between Hilltop Road and Bellevue Road”. You can not reduce the scope of this covenant to the view from just 12 houses.

Photo 1 shows the height of the Council’s preferred style of Tankerton hut.

Photo 2 shows the height of the Coastwatch Lookout. The front row of huts will be taller than the Lookout. The rear row of huts will stand taller still and will “materially impact on the visual amenity”.

The council’s plan therefore breaches the covenants threefold:

• It fails to keep the land as open space
• It fails to keep the land in public use
• It obstructs the view from the Beacon Hill estate, the Lees Estate and the land fronting to Beacon Hill.

This proposal can not legally be taken forward.

Phil Rose and Ros McIntyre
saveourdowns@gmail.com

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.

Timeline

2008-Sep-23
Herne Bay Area Members Panel, Agenda Item 38.
The Unlawful Shameful Proposal (USP) sees the light of day for the first time. The Panel thought:

• in principle the project was a good idea;
• the normal consultation procedures should be used;
• this was a good location for beach huts;
• it was hoped that any beach huts in this location could be painted and named;
• would the procurement rules delay the project;
• could a planning application be made at the same time as the disposal was advertised;
• was there any lighting at this location?

The Panel said they would:

• support the disposal of Public Open Space to the east of the old lookout station at East Cliff, Herne Bay;
• recommend that any negotiations relating to the use for this site be subject to the wider market.

WHAT?!? "...support the disposal of Public Open Space..." Without asking? Without knowing what we want? What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

The Government's national guidelines for how to look after Public Open Spaces are strict about disposing of a Public Open Space. They say that the land must be shown to be 'surplus to requirements', and that any development must shown to be 'widely supported by the local community'. Looks to me like 'No' and 'No'.

2008-Oct-13
Executive Committee Item 136.
They decide to advertise the proposed disposal of Public Open Space, and consider any objections at a later Executive meeting.

2008-Oct-17
First media sighting on thisiskent.co.uk.

2008-Oct-23 and Oct-30
Ad in Public Notices, Herne Bay Gazette - see "Consultation".

2008-Nov-18
Herne Bay Area Members Panel, Item 5 Matters Arising...
Reporting the decision of the Executive on October 13th.

2008-Dec-03
Executive Committee Item 195.
The Council's laughable consultation exercise has produced five letters of objection, one of them from our very own Councillor Reuby. Continuing the long-running insult to democracy, the objections are brushed aside, and it's full steam ahead with marketing the site. (Incidentally, I've not seen the marketing effort. If anyone's got any details, I would be grateful - I'm curious to know how it compares to the Public Notice.)

2008-Dec-19
I’m tipped off by my neighbour.

2009-Jan-15
Speech to Council.

2009-Jan-22
Herne Bay Gazette front page, inside pages and op-ed. Then nothing…

2009-Jan-24
Blog kick-started.

2009-Feb-05
Executive Committee: Speech.

The first media coverage

More beach huts for Herne Bay

A concerned councillor fears vandals could "cause havoc" if 40 new beach huts are built on the Herne Bay coast. Cllr Gillian Reuby of King Edward Avenue voiced her fears after the ball was set rolling on plans to build the "Tankerton-style" huts at East Cliff. Two potential developers want to design, build and manage the huts on land near the old Lookout Tower – an area designated as public open space. The city council's Executive put the proposal to public consultation on Monday. Cllr Reuby, who has lived in the town for 32 years, said:

"It is a quiet and peaceful area and should be left well alone. I agree there is a need for more beach huts but this isn't the right place. The huts would be completely out of sight, meaning vandals could cause havoc and no one would see it. Beach huts at the west end of town are always being vandalised so why would it be any different here? It would almost certainly be a case of out of sight, out of mind."

The Reculver ward councillor also expressed concerns about the number of huts proposed and the lack of parking spaces:

"They say 40 huts could be built but I've heard there could be up to 60, which is just utterly ridiculous - even 20 would be too many. They would all need to park at the top of Beacon Hill, which is bad enough as it is. At the weekend it's almost impossible to find a parking space."

The East Cliff area was home to concrete and traditional timber beach huts until the 1960s. Cllr Reuby said:

"Things were different back then. There wasn't the problem of vandalism like there is in this day and age. I think it's just the council thinking about its capital receipt. They are not thinking about how horrendous the problem with vandalism could be."

Cllr Reuby's concerns were not echoed by fellow Conservative and Reculver Ward councillor Gabrielle Davis. She said:

"We can't let the vandals beat us. There will always be vandalism but we just have to find a way to prevent it. I think beach huts are a splendid idea and make a seaside resort look much more attractive. The English holiday is coming back so what better way to bring people to the town."

City council property manager David Kemp was also confident the new huts would boost the town's image:

"This is an opportunity to create an area of focus at East Cliff and to attract more people to this area. It will hopefully also generate additional trade for the eastern end of the town - particularly the King's Hall tea shop. The provision of beach huts help to make seaside towns more attractive to visitors and residents alike."

thisiskent.co.uk Friday, October 17, 2008