Rotary's "Glorious June" Charity Golf Day

The Rotary Club of Herne Bay supports and champions local events and activities to help raise funds for local charitable and worthwhile causes. 

For 2013, our objective is to be able to continue to support local charities, clubs and organizations and as such we will be holding our ninth “Glorious June” Charity Golf Day on 7th June 2013 at the prestigious Belmont Golf Club, Faversham (unfortunately there is no Herne Bay Golf Club). 

If you, or someone you know, would like to join us for a game of golf, on an excellent course, and to enjoy the companionship of like-minded persons we would be pleased to welcome you either as a single person (when we would build a team around you) or as a team of four.

Entry for a team of 4 persons is £50 per person.  This provides you with coffee / tea & a bacon roll to start, 1 x free entry to the putting competition, followed by 18 holes of parkland golf rounded off with a buffet meal.  Prizes will be awarded for the best Team and best Individual score, best Putting Team, Nearest the Pin, Longest Drive and Nearest the Pin - Second shot.

Alternatively, perhaps you can help us by sponsoring a prize or the event itself. Sponsor opportunities are available from £25.  All sponsors are identified on all programme materials and advertising.

Interested?  If so, or you would like further details, please contact me on the following e-mail address Allan-Winkworth@Live.co.uk

Allan Winkworth

Herne Bay Rotary Club & Organizer “Glorious June Charity Golf Day 2013”

Crazy golf scheme for Herne Bay pier looks set to be approved

Oh dear, it looks like a shoo-in - no surprise there...

A smuggler-themed crazy golf course on Herne Bay pier looks set to be given the go-ahead by planning councillors.

Officials are recommending that the £250,000 scheme by arcade boss David Cain is granted planning permission, despite almost 30 letters from opponents. It would see a 13-hole course, complete with theme-park style shops, caves, waterfalls and bridges, built on the empty pier platform and surrounded by a two-metre high fence.

The development would leave a two-metre wide walkway around the course, giving access to the pier for anglers and walkers. The course would be floodlit and open from 9am to 10pm most of the year.

Two letters supporting the project were sent to Canterbury City Council, pointing out that the site could benefit the whole town and be a unique attraction. They also say it would be different to an existing course, owned by Jonas Pashley, whose family run the Sandancers arcade nearby. His daughter Shaney led the campaign against it and said it could put her father out of business.

Opponents sent a total of 27 letters against the proposals, raising concerns about the impact of the scheme on the regeneration of the pier. Many also argued that there was no need for another crazy golf course.

Planning officer Steve Musk said the main issue was the impact of the development on the seafront conservation area. In a report to the planning committee, who will meet on Tuesday to consider the proposals, he said:

"The proposed development and the use of the site as an adventure-based crazy golf facility would not be out of keeping with the type of activities expected to be found on a seaside pier and would preserve the character of the Herne Bay conservation area.

It is clear that many people do not feel this is an appropriate use for the site, whilst the presence of a crazy golf course nearby has also been a source of concern. It is considered that the impact of the scheme on the locality would be acceptable, [acceptable to whom, Mr Musk?] whilst the proposed use would be in accordance with the Herne Bay Area Action plan which sets out to provide a leisure facility on this site."

Mr Musk recommends granting planning permission for the scheme, with conditions including that a structural survey on the pier platform is carried out first, and that the course must be removed when it is no longer used.

Mr Cain would still need to negotiate a lease for the site with Canterbury City Council, who own the pier. The council's ruling executive committee has already agreed that letting out the pier platform could help raise valuable income to pay for maintenance work.

The development control committee will meet at 6.30pm on Tuesday, February 5, at the Guildhall in Canterbury. The meeting is open to the public.

thisiskent 29th Jan 2013

Planning Cockup

CCC's slapdash use of their own website has limited our opportunity to comment on a couple of major local issues.

When it comes to advertising any planning applications in the district, our Council is only obliged to put public notices near the site in question, and in a local paper. They use Kent on Sunday, so that must be OK, because everyone in Herne Bay reads Kent on Sunday. Right?

The Council does have a section on its website dedicated to publishing Public Notices such as planning applications. However, they didn't publish any of December's planning applications on their website (in the Public Notices section) until 20th December.

So, what did we miss out on during this period of cyber-silence? The Altira Sainsbury application, and the mini golf on the Pier application. The closing date for comments on the mini golf on the Pier application is Monday 14th January, so if you've got something to say, say it soon.

Pier Trust still has some explaining to do...

One local business owner has some strong opinions and a lot to say about the handling of the "mini golf on the Pier" shambles. Read it carefully, then act.

---

Dear Pier Trust Members and Herne Bay Residents,

My family and I have lived and worked in Herne Bay since 1953. We have been members of the Pier Trust for quite some time and we are all avid supporters of Herne Bay and the Pier Trust's aims to reclaim, regenerate and rebuild the Pier for the benefit of the whole of the Community.

It has come to my attention that recent plans for the development of the Pier, proposed by David Cain, are in direct contradiction to the original functions of the Trust and, therefore, arguably harmful to the town as a whole. I have been over the "Memorandum of Association" put forward by the Trust on their website. In this document, the "Objects" of the Trust are outlined as:

3.1 The preservation, renovation, reconstruction and enhancement of Herne Bay and the surrounding areas…

3.2 The promotion and use of the Pier for recreational purposes and as a community and heritage building for the general use and benefit of all inhabitants of, and visitors to, the town of Herne Bay and surrounding areas.

I next examined the "Powers" of the Trust and the first piece of information available was that these powers, "may only be exercised in promoting the objects as quoted above." The plans put forward by Cain's Amusements date back to April 2012, and multiple members of the trust, myself included, have only recently learned of this mini golf proposal. The fact that Trust members have not been made aware of these plans, directly contradicts the "objects" of the Trust and the way it is supposed to be run. If Trust members are not made aware of future plans for the Pier, how can it claim to be run for "the benefit of all inhabitants"? This breach of the Trust's constitution is morally unbecoming of the organization and detrimental to the Trust's success.

One of the main areas that I don't believe is working is the relationship between the Pier Trust and Canterbury City Council. This relationship is dictated in The Pier Trust's "Memorandum of Understanding" with Canterbury City Council, a document also available on the website. This document also features many broken promises, made between the Council and the Trust. It reads:

"The Trust will be treated by the City Council as the principle trustee within the town in relation to Pier matters. The City Council will actively consult with the Pier Trust on all aspects of the future of the Pier, including the Pier Pavilion building, the Pier head, the maintenance of the Pier structure and any proposals for the future use or development of the Pier.

The Trust and City Council will respect each other's views and will work together in the interests of the Pier and the town generally."

This agreement put forward in 2008 has been compromised. It's a very frustrating read. I cannot see how the Trust and the Council can "respect each other's views" if those views, and in this case, plans, are not revealed to Trust members. Dawn Hudd of Canterbury City Council has consulted directly on and has carried out a site visit to advise on the mini golf planning application. The date on those plans are April 2012. This suggests the council were in full knowledge of these plans but failed to share the information with the trust or its members while the "Memorandum of Understanding" was still in force.

I personally, have been in email contact with Dawn Hudd of CCC since May 2012 as I was one of 2 concessions granted on the Pier last summer and wanted to keep abreast of any plans for the Pier for the following year. Even though I asked directly by email, on 2nd October and 21st November 2012, if there were any plans, I was not told anything other than that a report would be going to Executive on Dec 13th. There has been no mention of this planning proposal to me or of the councils desire to "off load" the Pier to a mini golf operator or any other long term sole operator.

We all attended the HBPT AGM on 27th Nov 2012, which I'm sure you will all agree did not go as intended, no plans for the mini golf were mentioned there either. The trust put forward a short term plan for a Beach Hut Village which would be in place until the long term Marina Plan was developed and was ready to go ahead.

The first time the mini golf planning application was mentioned to members in an official capacity was in the Christmas newsletter, emailed to members on 20/12/12. In this newsletter under the title "The Adventure Golf on the Platform" the Trust talks of a "crowd pulling" attraction that the trust is happy to collaborate with. This statement was made without consulting with any Trust Members and certainly not with the only trust member who currently runs a mini golf and has in fact held a fund raising day on the mini golf for the benefit of the trust. Was this statement made by the co-chair, who also happens to be a councillor, who also happens to be on the Executive Committee that decided to keep the running of the Pier away from the Trust and in the councils control on 13th Dec 2012? This was 7 days after the planning application went in and was based on a report, criticizing the ability of the trust to run the Pier and recommending the council reclaim control, written by… Dawn Hudd.

I am not aware that the views of the Pier's close neighbours were sought. Our business has received no correspondence on the matter and even if the rules make no obligations for our views to be solicited, common courtesy dictates that they should have been sought or that we should, at the very least, have been informed.

I also can find only one notification in the local papers 13-12-2012.

Many of the declared goals of the Trust would no longer be possible were this planning application to be granted, such as :-

1. To create a community space to host a wide variety of events which could be enjoyed by the whole community and in which they can participate.

2. To rebuild a Pier that would ensure that Herne Bay would return to its former prominence as a desirable seaside destination in its own right.

I want to know why these plans seem to have gone so far without official consultation with any Pier Trust members? Why there have been no official or public consultation meetings with the people of Herne Bay, either by the council or the Trust. Also mentioned in the newsletter is Mr. John Gilbey's comment that the CCC "did not want to stand in the way of any sustainable ideas and only wanted what was right for the Pier". This comment seems unfounded as the Council had already met with David Cain and pre plans for the mini golf have already got underway with no consultation or approval from the Trust. If this project goes ahead the rebuilding of the pier prospect will be dead in the water. No investor would consider a project that would be hindered by a 10 year single leaseholder.

This is another issue in contention, the leasing of the Pier and the length thereof. I believe the Trust agreed the Council should not market the Pier as a long term commercial opportunity. The lease options that were suggested between the 2 parties were leases of only 1-2 years. I reiterate, any lease of such a length currently being proposed, would stop any rebuild prospects from proceeding in any way.

The Council is dismissing the Pier Trust and the Pier itself as a liability that they seek to get rid of at the first and easiest opportunity with no thought or consideration for what the people of Herne Bay want or what is best for the town's future, from attracting new residents, to tourism, to attracting new businesses which would all go to vitally boost our local economy.

Many trustees, who freely give up their own time, have left, due to frustration and disillusion with regard to the Council's interference, lack of support and manipulation of the Trust. I have personally experienced the council telling me the lack of progress was wholly the fault of the Trust. This obviously has a negative and demotivating impact on the Trustee's who try to follow the ethos of the Trust's constitution, for the good of the town as a whole and not just what the council wants. These enthusiasts "giving up" impacts on the efficiency of the Trust and its ability to achieve its goals.

This is not merely my opinion as it appears to be shared by virtually all of the local people and businesses that we have canvassed.

Whether you agree with my opinion or not, I urge Pier Members, Herne Bay residents and anyone who cares about the future of the Pier and Herne Bay alike to please register your opinion by writing or emailing the Pier Trust at: piertrust.office@talktalk.net also Mr Steve Musk, Development Control, Canterbury City Council, Military Road, Canterbury, CT1 1YW or by emailing development.management@canterbury.gov.uk

Please quote Planning Application Number CA//12/02132.

Any objections to the planning application must be in by 14th January 2013.

Please feel free to contact me by email to: shaneypashley@sasamusements.co.uk

Christmas message from the Pier Trust

Good News for the future of the Pier

Three trustees of the HB Pier Trust attended the executive meeting of Canterbury City Council last Thursday and although they arrived smarting from the negative vibes in the press about an ultimatum to "shape up or ship out", they were pleasantly surprised by the positive attitude of the councillors at the meeting. Anyone wanting to hear what actually happened and what was said can listen to the recording of the executive meeting on the CCC website.

Repairs to the Existing Pier

The first item on the agenda relating to the pier was what actions should be taken about the poor condition of the wood in the substructure - not the planks you see when you walk on the pier but the wooden joists underneath them. The Pier Trust and CCC had already discussed this problem and it was mutually agreed that the Trust is not in a position financially to tackle repairs on this scale. This was a major reason for the Pier Trust preferring the management of the pier to remain at present with the council. Until it has established the hut village as a regular source of income, it knows it is not ready to take on management of the pier.

The 4 options to fund the urgently needed repairs ranged from a 2 year patch-up to a major overhaul and the good news for Herne Bay and the Pier Trust is that the executive unanimously voted for the best option which will cost in the region of £200,000. It will be carried out in stages with minimal disruption to the short term plans to progress activities on the pier.

That Report!

Dawn Hudd, the Culture Officer’s report was the next item about the future of the pier and it also contained 4 options: close the pier, hand over management to the Pier Trust, CCC to retain management, or a combination of the latter two options. Both the CCC and Pier Trust favoured this recommended option 4 – that the CCC retain control including maintenance costs until the Pier Trust is in a sufficiently strong financial position to take over management. This, especially in the light of this year’s huge maintenance bill, is seen as the only realistic option for us this year.

The executive councillors expressed very supportive comments about the current Pier Trust. They wished us well with the plans we are submitting for a beach hut village up the leg of the pier. The executive viewed the pier as an integral part of the regeneration plans for Herne Bay. Mr John Gilbey, Leader of CCC, said he had attended our AGM and assured us that CCC did not want to stand in the way of any sustainable ideas and only wanted what was right for Herne Bay and the Pier. We three trustees thought the comments at the meeting fair and positive.

The Adventure Golf on the Platform

Last week, we met with Mr Cain to discuss his plans for a crowd-pulling tourist attraction on the tarmac of the platform. The Trust is happy to work together with Mr Cain and the beach hut village and the Smugglers’ Adventure Golf will be mutually beneficial this year both bringing in tourists and locals. There will still be full access for walkers to enjoy the walks on the pier. Mr Cain will be investing a large amount in the pier and hopes to attract over 5000 visitors to the pier in August. Maybe next winter we shall see the pier lit up with lights and a Christmas Market complete with Santa on the pier.

Looking forward to 2013

Thank you for all your support this year. Don’t believe all you read in the press – we have come to realise that a good story built on a few disconnected comments is often a priority for journalists – we are learning, with difficulty, to take it as modern media speak.

A special thank you goes to our volunteers who have been standing in the cold this month outside supermarkets meeting members, collecting subs, manning the office and the Santa’s grotto in the bandstand and doing so much to keep us going. Their help is much appreciated by us. Thank you.

The Office in the Pier Gallery on Central Parade is now up and running and we are in the process of sorting out the administrative problems that we have suffered in the last year. Hopefully 2013 will be a good year all round for the Trust.

We are moving the Wine and Wisdom date from the 4th of January to a later date as general opinion indicates that was too near Christmas. We shall email you the new date as soon as possible. The bands event specifically aimed at the younger audience will take place at the King’s Hall on Feb 9th and tickets will be available at £5 each in the New Year – we shall email you with details then.

If any Member wishes to stand themselves or wishes to nominate another Member to stand for the role of trustee next year we are looking specifically for members with expertise in the following areas : legal experience, promotional expertise, financial and fund-raising (big fund-raising!) expertise.

Lastly but by no means least come down to the Bandstand at the weekend and find out more about the 2013 on the Pier. We together with other community organisations will be there between 11:00am and 4:00pm. Santa will also be there so bring the kids or grandkids and they will receive a free gift. All we ask is that you bring a few tins of food as a donation to the parcels that will be given to the less fortunate at Christmas.

Happy Christmas

Doreen Stone & Joe Howes - Joint Chairmen

Nothing to do with jollies...

Andrew is the patron saint of Greece, Prussia, Romania, Russia, Scotland, Ukraine, and sports-themed regional promotion. At the St Andrews Open (a golf thing) our plucky council workers will be promoting us for all they're worth, but it may be a waste of their time and our money.

Row over Council's £40,000 trip to golf Open

Later this month, staff from the city council will travel to St Andrews in Scotland while The Open Championship golf takes place in a trip costing Canterbury's taxpayers £40,000. The city council insists staff will be working hard to promote Canterbury in a way which it hopes will benefit the district many times over when Sandwich hosts The Open at Royal St George's this time next year. However, one prominent hotelier questions the need to promote the city when Canterbury's hotels and bed and breakfasts will be full when The Open comes to east Kent next year. David Sharma, the owner of Howfield Manor Hotel in Chartham, says promoting the city on what will be its busiest week of the year is a waste of public money.

FOR

Council spokesman Rob Davies said:

The city council has made a total contribution of £40,000, spread over two years, towards the cost of staging the Open golf in east Kent next year. This spending has nothing to do with jollies and hospitality, as some people were suggesting during our budget consultation last year; and everything to do with maximising what is a great opportunity to promote the area to a worldwide audience in much the same way as the Tour de France was.

The three staff from the city council will join people from Visit Kent and other east Kent councils at St Andrews. They will be working 16-hour days for 10 days, have no access to watch the golf and will be staying in a rented house 50 miles away from St Andrews to keep the costs down. The team will have a huge, east Kent-branded stand featuring a range of images of the area in order to promote it as a great place for golfing breaks and holidays, to make sure we get the best possible legacy from the Open golf coming to Sandwich.

We will also have the same presence at the 2012 Open at Royal Lytham & St Annes. In short, this trip will see our staff working their socks off for the benefit of the local economy and to get the maximum return for our £40,000 contribution.

AGAINST

David Sharma, who has run Howfield Manor since it reopened in autumn 2008, said:

There will be no accommodation available anywhere near Canterbury while the golf is on, so what is the point of going to St Andrews to promote accommodation? Even hotels in south London will be full during the tournament. This trip has all the hallmarks of a jolly for those people going. And given that there are going to be cutbacks in public services, going up to Scotland to watch the golf seems even more wasteful.

If the council was genuinely interested in promoting tourism in the district then it should look at trying to encourage people to come to Canterbury during the week when things are much quieter - not during the busiest week of the whole year. We don't need them promoting us when we get the business, we need it during down times. I'm going to be fully booked during the golf. I'm just bewildered about this on two counts. First, as an accommodation provider I question the need for it and secondly, as a council taxpayer I'm angry public money is being used for it.

HB Gazette 8th July 2010

---

As I have mentioned elsewhere, one of my many hideous personality defects is that I just don't 'get' golf. This leaves me doubly perplexed when trying to assess the commercial logic of sending people to the other end of the country to work stupid hours for a fortnight. I'm assuming that the £40k is simply to buy our exhibitor's pass - feeding and housing our ambassadors at the other end of the country is extra. Thrilled as I am that Council employees are prepared to work 16 hour days promoting Canterbury (District, not just the City, I hope), they don't have to go to Scotland to do it.

The Open will be coming to Sandwich, regardless of the Council's presence and efforts at St Andrews. Hardened golf fans will already have decided whether to come to the Sandwich Open. Of those who are undecided and persuadable, I'm guessing only a minority will be at St Andrews. It seems like a lot of time, money and effort to catch those few waverers - a half-way decent ad campaign in the golfing press would probably do the trick.

If Mr Sharma is correct, the whole area will be fully booked during the Sandwich Open anyway, so people would end up in the bridal suite, or an over-priced broom cupboard, or in the middle of nowhere - hardly the most attractive way to be a visitor.

Key concept: "return on investment". Is anyone at our Council measuring this? Does anyone have any figures for previous years?

£20k down a small hole

Just to quickly refresh your memory, dear reader, we are living in times of budget cuts and belt-tightening. There has been widespread local coverage of Canterbury City Council slashing, cutting, trimming and salami slicing. In the expectation that their central funding will be reduced, CCC has been wielding the knife on all but the biggest projects.

It came as an unwelcome surprise to me that CCC was proposing to make a £20,000 "contribution to hospitality for the Open Golf Tournament at Sandwich". (For the benefit of our international readers, the town of Sandwich has its own Town Council, and falls within the realm of Dover District Council. In terms of the semi-feudal world of local government funding, it is completely separate from Canterbury City Council: only 12 miles from Canterbury, but it may as well be in France.)

The clearest explanation of the rationale behind the outlay that I've been able to find comes from the Council Leader, Cllr Gilbey:

The Leader said that the £20,000 contribution for The Open golf tournament in 2011 was not a grant and that it never had been. He indicated that, like the situation for the 2012 Olympics in London, the whole of the district would benefit from the event and that we would expect every hotel in the district to be fully booked. The Leader emphasised that the £20,000 was available, if required, for the council to take full advantage of the event. He pointed out that it would be used for things like promotions to make sure we achieved the maximum benefit for the businesses, homes and people of the District, as we did when The Open golf tournament last came to Kent.

Schmoozing in the posh seats, by the sounds of it. News of this £20k-worth of largesse has been widely met with incredulity and anger, and unsurprisingly it came up in the recent budget "debate" in the form of a don't-be-evil-be-good ambush from the LibDems:

It was proposed by Councillor A Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council cancel the £20,000 contribution to the Open Golf at Sandwich and use that money to reinstate £20,000 of the funding withdrawn from Age Concern and Northgate Over 60’s. (Revenue neutral).

The foregoing amendment was declared LOST. I'm not particularly surprised, but I am thoroughly disgusted. As luck would have it, this was one of the shamefully rare occasions when the vote was actually recorded, so we (the paying punters) get to find out who did what:

For the amendment:
Councillors Berridge, Bright, Calvert-Mindell, Dixey, Dye, M Flaherty, R Flaherty, Flanagan, Hando, Linfield, MacCaul, Matthews, Parsons, A Perkins, Staley, Vickers, Vye and Wratten (18)

Against the amendment:
Councillors Anderson, Austin, Bissett, Davis, Doyle, Ellis, Fisher, Gilbey, Harrison, Mrs Law, Lee, McCabe, McMahan, Patterson, J Perkins, Pickersgill, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, A Taylor, H Taylor, Thomas, Todd, Vickery-Jones and Windsor (25)

Abstained from voting:
Councillors Cragg and Reuby (2)

Absent from the meeting:
Councillors Carnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed (5)

You may want to ask any or all of those who voted against the motion why they did as they did, or you may want to share an opinion with them. Here's a who's who and where and how:

Anderson Conservative, North Nailbourne, john.anderson@canterbury.gov.uk
Austin Conservative, Sturry North, tony.austin@canterbury.gov.uk
Bissett Conservative, Herne and Broomfield, evelyn.bissett@canterbury.gov.uk
Davis Conservative, Reculver, gabrielle.davis@canterbury.gov.uk
Doyle Conservative, Chartham and Stone Street, rosemary.doyle@canterbury.gov.uk
Ellis Conservative, Northgate, darren.ellis@canterbury.gov.uk
Fisher Conservative, Tankerton, martin.fisher@canterbury.gov.uk
Gilbey Conservative, Blean Forest, john.gilbey@canterbury.gov.uk
Harrison Conservative, Tankerton, jeanne.harrison@canterbury.gov.uk
Mrs Law Conservative, Seasalter, jean.law@canterbury.gov.uk
Lee Conservative, West Bay, peter.lee@canterbury.gov.uk
McCabe Conservative, Blean Forest, hazel.mccabe@canterbury.gov.uk
McMahan Conservative, West Bay, vincent.mcmahan@canterbury.gov.uk
Patterson Conservative, Chartham and Stone Street, mike.patterson@canterbury.gov.uk
J Perkins Conservative, Gorrell, jackie.perkins@canterbury.gov.uk
Pickersgill Conservative, Northgate, sally.pickersgill@canterbury.gov.uk
Samper Conservative, Chestfield and Swalecliffe, jenny.samper@canterbury.gov.uk
Sharp Conservative, Seasalter, mike.sharp@canterbury.gov.uk
Sonnex Conservative, Herne and Broomfield, sharron.sonnex@canterbury.gov.uk
A Taylor Conservative, Reculver, ann.taylor@canterbury.gov.uk
H Taylor Conservative, Sturry South, heather.taylor@canterbury.gov.uk
Thomas Conservative, Chestfield and Swalecliffe, ian.thomas@canterbury.gov.uk
Todd Conservative, Chestfield and Swalecliffe, pat.todd@canterbury.gov.uk
Vickery-Jones Conservative, Herne and Broomfield, peter.vickeryjones@canterbury.gov.uk
Windsor Conservative, Seasalter, cyril.windsor@canterbury.gov.uk