Local Plan: Herne Bay's 'Usual Suspects' call for Plan B

View fullsize

There may not be any violence, drugs or crime, but Herne Bay's Usual Suspects are still hoping for an explosive impact.

The group of campaigners have stepped forward to produce their own proposals for the future of the town, claiming the council's draft Local Plan would prove as disastrous as the failed heist in the Oscar-winning film.

They came up with the name after councillors complained they always heard from the "usual suspects" and instead wanted to encourage as many people as possible to have their say on the council's vision for development over the next 20 years.

The original six – Dylan Hampshire, Jason Hollingsworth, Andy Lawrence, Phil Rose, Graham Cooper and Ros McIntyre – have already been joined by others who fear the council's draft Local Plan would mean Herne Bay residents would depend on the city for jobs and shops.

It includes proposals for five new housing estates, with thousands of new homes. Phil Rose, who is also involved with the Friends of the Downs and runs website Herne Bay Matters, said:

"The plan's mad. It's just houses, houses, houses with no thought for where all these people will work, shop, educate their kids, or spend their leisure time.  Worse, Herne Bay is being used as a cash cow to pay for improvements elsewhere.

We can't let this happen.  We think that a Local Plan should be by and for local people – the Local Plan needs to listen to local voices."

He said it was vital more residents had their say and got involved, and hopes the Usual Suspects theme will encourage them. Mr Rose added:

"We thought we would have some fun with the idea in the hope of encouraging others who care about the town to stand up for its future now.  The vast majority of residents have no idea what Canterbury City Council is planning for us."

The group is also concerned that the schemes put forward by the council would force people to Canterbury because of the lack of vision for Herne Bay's town centre. Mattress-maker Dylan Hampshire, of Cockett's Mattresses, said:

"This Local Plan will stop Herne Bay from having new major food retail outlets outside that area. We won't get Sainsbury's or Tesco if this plan goes through.  So where are we supposed to shop? Canterbury! Part of the money earned from houses built in Herne Bay will be spent on a new crossing in Sturry.  Canterbury will get new shops too. The idea is clearly that we're supposed to drive to shop in Canterbury, leaving our town without retail income."

The group say job creation should be included, as well as a new secondary school for the town, and say the two doctors' surgeries planned will not be enough to cope with the thousands of extra residents. Ros McIntyre added:

"We urged Canterbury not to build on greenfield sites, but all the major housing developments are on greenfield sites – five in Herne Bay alone.  The implications are huge. These five estates will have 2,990 new houses. If Herne Bay gets its share of the usual smaller developments on top of this, we'll end up with more than 4,600 new homes. There'll be more than 15,000 more people living here – that's a 40 per cent increase on our population of 38,000."

Council spokesman Rob Davies said the draft Local Plan was out for public consultation until August 30. He added:

"We look forward to hearing the alternative proposals for Herne Bay from this group in due course."

For more information on the alternative plan, e-mail LocalPlanLocalVoice@gmail.com or visit the Speciality Food Shop in Mortimer Street.

HB Times 4th Jul 2013

Pier Trust Chair puts her case

Doreen Stone (co-Chair of the HBPT) posted this on the "official" Pier Trust Facebook site, in response to Graham Cooper's letter.

---

Hello members and friends,

I am responding to Graham's post I understand from the HB Times that rebuild were contacted by Liz. The facts and figures were extracted without doctoring or special selection to make a point. the basic facts that we would have to pay to walk on our pier, that all the attractions can be there without a marina tacked on and that the car park essential for the marina with its 2 lane road would spoil it for everyone else are clear for everyone to see.

My optimism in November was proved wrong - since then the rebuild group have contacted the press, met Sir Roger Gale, sent articles and statements that none of the trustees have seen to numerous magazines without any checking with the Trust. They have become a pressure group to push forwards the views they have held before they resigned as trustees over a year ago.

It has now come to my notice that a draft of the 2011 Gifford report, a much more detailed and intensive report, which neither the then chairman or most of the trustees ever saw is very clear that a marina at the pier head was not its recommended option. Gifford recommended a marina much nearer shore with 8hr access. It also pointed out that as the windfarms had invested so much money in Ramsgate facilities that probably only 1 or 2 O&M vessels at most would use Herne Bay as a base.

If those who are supporting a marina at the end of the pier take over the Trust our chances of building a long pier for the people of Herne Bay will be squashed. all the trustees are working many hours a week because we are committed to a long pier but we believe it should be the type of pier the people of HB also want. We are going to open out the debate to all the creative people in HB to come together in an exhibition of their concepts and designs for everyone in the town to view and choose preferences.

Incidentally, I sent the rebuild group our list of reservations the week before the press release was written and before we wrote the letter to members. Liz on the Times will conform that after Jason phoned me I told her I would hold back for a week. However, the time has come for more than the usual vocal minority to have their say.

Pier Trust Rebuild Group put their case

Graham Cooper (formerly an HBPT Trustee, currently part of the Rebuild Group) posted this on the "official" Pier Trust Facebook site:

---

Dear All,

Many of you will have no doubt seen the reports in the papers this week. Sadly the rebuild group were not asked for any comment or given the opportunity to repond by the Times. Here is a copy of a letter we sent to the Gazette, when they did ask us for comment.

The volunteers on the rebuild group are shocked to discover that the Trustees had already decided as early as February 2012 that their preferred option was a gradual rebuild and not the pier/marina proposal. Neither we nor the membership have been informed of this, even at the November AGM. We are also very disappointed at the rather sensationalist headlines in last week's HB Times and more recently the rather confused and unclear letter sent to pier trust members this week, both of which state a number of assumptions and figures which are taken out of context and both of which conveniently leave out the projected £18million injection into the local economy that would result from the pier/marina.

We have offered on a number of occasions to respond to any trustees queries in order to clarify what the report is saying. The Trustees have had the report since last November! However before we had a chance to respond to the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Trust, she has informed us that she will not communicate any further with us until she has sent a letter to members and presumably got their feed- back.

We are very concerned that last week's story and the Trust Chair's recent letter to members are giving a very one sided view of things and as a we are effectively unable to communicate our response to members in any other way, in the next week or so we will be publishing an open letter, providing a fuller response to concerns raised.

But for now, it is important to convey a few key messages to members and the public alike. Firstly, the Collier report is intended to offer a workable solution for a rebuilt pier and to demonstrate business viability. It is designed as a conceptual report and certainly not definitive in any particular detail. The report does offer an excellent insight into what is feasible and we should remember that Collier are one of the top three property and destinations experts in the world, that is why we hired them.

Secondly, we are puzzled as to the motive and timing behind these recent stories and the Chair's letter to members and refusal to communicate further with the rebuild team. This all certainly flies in the face of Doreen Stone's comments of the Trust's Facebook page last November:

"the Trust's Board is more stable at this time than it has been for a long time with ex-trustees and current trustees working together on options for the future of the pier. Two weeks ago we had a very friendly and useful meeting with John Gilbey, Leader of Canterbury City Council, who remarked on the unity of our team. There is a great deal of hard work and cooperation going on at present".

As far as we can see the only thing that has changed since last November is the excellent publicity and supporters that the pier/marina idea has attracted, why this should present the Trust with a problem we fail to understand.

Council demolition failure

Now this is interesting. Firstly Mr McMahan doesn't say where his figure of £750,000 comes from - is this what CCC have actually paid the contractors? - but I really like his idea that money generated from the demolition could have been re-invested in the Pier.

Secondly, the Council spokesman (Wormtongue, as I think of him) seems to be having trouble with numbers when he says "... it was discovered that the amount of asbestos in the building was understated and its removal was more problematic than first envisaged. The council has incurred no extra cost ...".

In June of last year, the local press reported that the cost of demolition was £243k more than the budgeted £425k because of the asbestos revealed by a structural survey. As Cllr Vickery-Jones said at the time:

This is a huge increase but there is no alternative.

Hmmm... "no extra cost" or "a huge increase" - which do you think best describes £243,000?

So our Council got a fixed price deal and handed over the value of all the scrap to the contractors, at a time when most metal prices seemed to be rising steadily (apparently due to demand for raw materials in China pushing up prices globally).

Are any of CCC's bean-counters going to figure out how much we lost out as a result? I doubt it. They won't bother to find out how costly this mistake was, and as a result will probably repeat it.

---

Counting the cost of pier demolition

Pulling down Herne Bay's Pier Pavilion has cost tax-payers £750,000 and left the town with nothing in return, claims former city councillor Vince McMahan. He says a clause in the demolition contract means contractors have been allowed to strip the pier of valuable scrap metal and pocket the cash. The dad of three stormed:

"It beggars belief. It is a slap in the face to the people of Herne Bay that firstly the cost shot up to £668,000 because the council didn't realise there was so much asbestos there. And then the deal means the company can keep the scrap.

The whole building was clad in aluminium, which is worth a lot of money now. With scrap metal prices soaring, the council should have insisted the money was recycled to, say, the Pier Trust or ring-fenced for the town's regeneration."

Council spokesman Rob Davies insisted:

"We held a competitive tender for the demolition contract to ensure we got the best possible price. The salvage and sale of recyclable materials such as metal, steel and timber are being carried out by the contractor but it is important to stress that any money made from this was included as savings to the council in the tender price.

It also makes sense on a practical level because, if the council had kept these materials, it would have incurred substantial transport and storage costs. The council let the contract on a maximum price basis, where the risk of any cost increase was transferred to the contractor.

This decision was a very good one as, when the building envelope was opened, it was discovered that the amount of asbestos in the building was understated and its removal was more problematic than first envisaged. The council has incurred no extra cost but has allowed the contractors extra time to deal with these difficult issues.

We are forecasting that the demolition works will be completed by mid-April and that the post-demolition works will be completed in time for the summer season."

The row erupted as the council was blasted by former Pier Trust bosses for failing to back the group. Former treasurer and accountant Jason Hollingsworth, 40, from Victoria Park, who stood down from the Trust three months ago, said in a joint letter with former chairman Graham Cooper:

"In our view, the trust has never been effectively or adequately supported by the council. Indeed, that is at the core of why so many trustees have stood down. Throughout 2011, the Herne Bay Pier Trust participated in a joint working group with Canterbury City Council but from our experience the key difficulty was getting clear and consistent answers from the council as to its plans, ideas and funding."

Former chairman of the trust's business group Michael Khoury said:

"We worked out that a pier platform reaching the old pier head would cost £11 million, not £60 million as some claimed. The council has spent more than half a million pounds just knocking the building down with nothing left. Where's the vision?"

Pier campaigner Kim Hennelly asked the city council's deputy head of culture and enterprise Dawn Hudd outright about the council's intentions and received this reply:

"The council does not have any current intention of rebuilding the pier itself. Our corporate plan pledges to improve the seafront and the current pier platform. The Herne Bay Pier Trust was set up so that a business plan could be developed by the trust working with the people of Herne Bay.

The council is supporting this process by helping the trust to develop its business plan during this year and deliver events and activities on the pier platform for the 2012 season. We expect the trust to pursue rebuilding or extending the pier if it considers that to be right."

thisikent 23rd Mar 2012

Our Council must support the Pier Trust

An open letter to CCC from the Pier Trust's ex-Treasurer Jason Hollingsworth and ex-Chairman Graham Cooper:

In light of all the recent Council criticism of the Pier Trust in the press, as past Trustees we feel compelled to respond and set the record straight.

Firstly and perhaps rather tellingly, our first observation is astonishment that CCC should level any criticism at the Trust at all, after all the Pier Trust is a community organisation and if the council considers there are deficiencies why has CCC not done the right thing and wholeheartedly got behind the Trust and to support it and help to rectify those supposed failings.

After all, CCC does have two council appointed Trustees on the board! Perhaps this would have been a more constructive approach and a far better one, than simply to sitting back and sniping. Indeed, looking back to the last Pier Trust Annual General Meeting, as we recall, one of the councillor Trustees presented the assembled members with all the plans he envisaged for use of the pier in 2012. What has happened to them? Perhaps that is where any criticism should be directed.

Since its inception, the Trust has continued to attract very committed, high calibre individuals to help and advise it. Many of the Trustees regularly put in hundreds of hours per year unpaid to work solely for a better future for Herne Bay and should be lauded for doing so.

The Trust has produced several sound ideas and organised numerous successful events, Party on the Pier – a huge all day event that offered free roller skating and entertainment for the whole of Herne Bay, the Christmas Grotto, events at the Herne Bay Festival and the Herne Bay schools arts project to name but a few, all of which happened with little or no assistance from CCC.

Throughout 2011 the Trust participated in a joint working group with CCC and from our experience the key difficulty was getting clear and consistent answers from the council as to their plans, ideas and funding. If any criticism is to be levelled at the Trust, it can surely only be lack of resource. The problem has never been lack of experience or commitment.

In our view, the Trust has never been effectively or adequately supported by the Council. Indeed that is at the core of why so many Trustees have stood down in the past few years. This is in stark contract to Hastings, where with the full support and help of the local council, the Trust has been able to obtain considerable funding to produce its long term business plan.

To truly deliver on the expectations of the Trust’s members and the Town as a whole, full and effective support from the Council is essential. We know that the Trust has done all it can to move things forward in a constructive and professional manner.

Perhaps the Council now needs to do its part by addressing the confused relationship between the Trust and the Council and replacing it with an open, honest and effective partnership agreement with clear responsibilities and objectives for all concerned. We truly hope that this will be forthcoming as without it the Pier Trust’s objectives both short and long term will be completely unachievable.

Jason Hollingsworth

Graham Cooper

The ninth iffiest Pier?

Herne Bay pier is among 10 across England and Wales that have been identified as being at serious risk of demolition or collapse. The report from the National Piers Society, placed the town's iconic structure at number nine in a top 10 which also includes Hastings and Brighton West piers in neighbouring East Sussex. But staunch defenders of Herne Bay Pier's future have dismissed the survey as pure conjecture. Graham Cooper, chairman of the Herne Bay Pier Trust, said:

"There's absolutely no scientific basis for this. It's purely based on public opinion and we or the city council have not been contacted to ask what we think. The pier structure itself is not at risk of decay or collapse but, of course, the pier head is. The Pier Trust is here to make plans for regeneration and to look at ways of changing it for the future. Canterbury City Council have already engaged consultants to look into future uses."

The National Piers Society believe this week's list illustrates the continued decline of the landmarks across England and Wales. A total of 101 piers were all built between 1814 and 1957 and now just over half of those remain, with 10 closed to the public. Society spokesman Anthony Wills feels the future is mixed. He said:

"It depends on whether piers can rebrand themselves and on what kind of state they've got into. Most important is whether or not the owners, be they private or the local authority, are continually investing and maintaining the structure, rather than just looking at the money-making aspects above the decking."

Hopes are high for Herne Bay pier's future, with Mr Cooper confident it can survive after the relocation of the Pier Pavilion sports centre next year. He added:

"This survey hasn't really taken any context into account. Herne Bay pier is in council hands, not private ownership and if the will is there, which it is, then something can be done. There's 100 per cent commitment from both the trust and the city council to improve the structure for future generations."

Kentish Gazette 2nd Sep 2009