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?

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.