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?

A little bird told me...

...well, Graham Finch (my favourite Democracy Services Officer at CCC) told me: the Executive can't yet make a recommendation to Council about the beach huts, because they don't have a report from their legal boffins. The Executive next meet on 2nd April - with luck we may have both activity and progress by then.

The law does grind exceeding slow. I hope it turns out exceeding fine. Fingers crossed.

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