Good cop, bad cop.

A rather odd sensation that I don't think I'll ever get the hang of is banging my head against one part of the Council, whilst having a sensible conversation with another part. Hey ho.

CCC chants the mantra that registration (of the Downs as a village green) would prevent maintenance, presumably in the hope that an oft-repeated lie will somehow become true. In their objection to Kent County Council (the village green registration authority), they invoke a 135 year old, late Victorian Act of parliament to support their claim that it is actually impossible for the Downs to become a village green. Balderdash, as the late Victorians would have said.

Meanwhile, the Outdoor Leisure department has recognised The Downs is a "strategic open space", being the only large open space in town apart from the Memorial Gardens. They are also keen to work with local "grassroots" groups, not least because such groups have access to sources of funding that are closed to the Council.

This has lead to an awakening of the idea of active co-operation:

Thank you for taking the time to chat through some joint working opportunities to enhance the Downs as we are keen to work with community groups. As you are aware the primary function of the Downs is coastal protection that may, from time to time, have to take precedence. However, we have already set aside some funding for some environmental enhancement for this strategically important piece of open space.

The aim of joint working would be to develop a management plan based upon survey work, community and partnership input and this could include issues such as: amend habitat - depending on the results of wildlife surveys, improved access, promotion / awareness, training for community volunteers or guided walks and much more no doubt. We see key partners such as yourselves, Kent Wildlife Trust, Herne Bay in Bloom, Natural England and many others will emerge.

The contrast between their stubbornness over registration and their enthusiasm for "joint working opportunities" is stark. Registration would cost them potential revenues from developers, whereas working with community groups can magic money out of thin air. Is that really all there is to it?

It's like pulling hen's teeth

Apologies for the mixed metaphor, but getting a straight answer out of CCC is slow and painful, and results are few and far between. Here's a case in point: the forces of Mordor (aka Canterbury City Council) have fixed their beady little eyes on a slice of The Downs, with a view to turning a fast buck. Before they can start developing it, they had to strip it of its Public Open Space status, even though it's in a ward which their own Open Spaces analysis describes as having a dearth of recreational open space. What they overlooked in their unseemly dash for cash was national Planning Policy Guideline 17 (PPG17), which requires them to identify and supply suitable replacement land.

An inquisitive local resident wrote to Cllr Vickery-Jones, who is the portfolio holder for foreshore, beaches and beach huts:

When will the Council (finally) start addressing its responsibility to provide a suitable and matching replacement for the land it stripped of Public Open Space designation over a year ago? (A duty under PPG17.)

And this is what came back:

This question is interesting as it raises issues such as proportionality. To explain that I must tell you that in my view Councillors have a duty to act without regard for the ballot box, of course they carry an obligation to listen to all residents but they also have a duty to look at the needs of other residents who do not normally raise their voices until the opportunity is lost. I do not and will not ever let people down because I have not been robust in exploring any and all opportunities to improve the ability of Herne Bay to thrive again, even though I am criticised for it. How anyone can ever take the view that this proposal is anything but good for our town, frankly is beyond me.

Our town where 70p in every £1 is spent elsewhere, where our kids can't stay because there is little work and where the average wage is £11,000. Who can possibly live on that? My daughter is 14, you may well have young people in your family, where is their future?  I have a duty to provide for their needs as well, as best I can.

I am aware that there are quite a few people who have signed a petition against this proposal, however I am also aware that there has been many scare stories circulated which did not provide the full picture. The Downs have never been under threat from this proposal, no one has ever played cricket or football on the area in question nor has any one flown a kite or even walked their dog unless they suffered being torn to bits by the brambles, the cliff is subject to movement which is the reason that very large rain water drains are installed in that particular area. In all this area is totally unsuitable for any of the activities claimed and would only sustain temporary and light structures such as Beach Huts.

Lib Dem Rob Bright stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the local paper because this matter was never 'Political' it was always about what was perceived as being the best for all of Herne Bay. We have the same passion for Herne Bay as you obviously do, we only differ in that you can afford to be very 'local' whereas we councillors cannot, simply because we have to take a 'broader' view, such as what is good for the whole town.

You state that you are an independent individual which gives me some hope that you may take an objective view and with that some better understanding of the issues.

These are entirely my personal views and should be considered in that light, they give a true and accurate of the way I see the matter. if I can assist you further please do not hesitate to contact me, my only request is that you do not ask the same questions as I have answered these, using the sum total of my knowledge.

Load of cock, if you ask me.

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.

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

Pending rant

(Email sent 27th Jan 2009 to Herne Bay Gazette, for publication. Still unpublished. I am desolated.)

East Cliff beach Huts: illegal, immoral, unnecessary, unwanted and unwise.

Illegal?
A legal covenant on this land means that, by law, the Council must “keep the land as an open space and pleasure ground for the recreation and use and enjoyment of the public forever”. Privately owned beach huts aren’t open space, and aren’t for public use.

Immoral!
The people who gifted this land trusted the Council to do right by them. Carving it up for developers betrays that trust. One percent of the people I’ve spoken to knew about this plan. The Council has not consulted adequately, and does not have our permission – this is an anti-democratic abuse of power.

Unnecessary:
There’s already planning permission for about 50 huts elsewhere in Herne Bay, Tankerton and Whitstable.

Unwanted:
There’s already more supply than demand: there is no waiting list for huts. There aren’t crowds of people saying ‘Yes’ to huts at East Cliff, but there are plenty saying ‘No’.

Unwise:
The last lot of huts (on exactly this site) became so vandalised and derelict that the Council had to demolish them. The unstable slopes at East Cliff have been expensively strengthened and drained – smashing them about for building work is just daft.

The Council are trying to do the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Beach huts are a bit like Marmite – some people love them, some people hate them and some aren’t that fussed. But for me, this isn’t about huts, it’s about keeping The Downs open and free, forever.