Work to start on Herne Bay sea defences

Canterbury City Council has received approval and funding from the Environment Agency to start improvements to the sea defences at the central part of Herne Bay.

The £900,000 project includes a £80,000 council contribution, and work is due to start on site at the end of January. Breheny Civil Engineering has been awarded the contract, and all improvements should be completed by the end of June this year.

Work on the sea defences will involve raising the rear wall by 300mm and renewal of all the coping stones. All gaps will be closed by the use of floodgates, and a new rear wall will be built across the back of Neptune car park. The car park will also benefit from a barrier which will be installed at its entrance and can be closed at night, making the area secure.

Three new groynes will be constructed at the western end of central Herne Bay, where beach erosion has become a regular problem. The project will upgrade the standard of the sea defences to meet a one in 200-year storm event, such as the storm surge that occurred in the winter of 1953.

Originally scheduled for 2015, the council was able to bring the sea defence work forward due to a swift design and tender process that made the funding available. The project was designed and will be managed on site by the East Kent Engineering Partnership (EKEP). This is a partnership of Canterbury, Dover, Thanet, Shepway and Swale councils’ engineering teams.

The council’s Executive member for engineering, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

"The council is absolutely committed to investing in the future of Herne Bay, and to have secured this funding for a significant project is wonderful news. The country has seen recent unprecedented inland flooding and this has led to extra demand to combat the problem. Therefore we’re pleased to have been able to convince the Environment Agency of the importance of the need for our scheme. Thanks to our involvement with EKEP, the Canterbury engineering team has worked on an array on different projects, including work for other local authorities. This expertise ensures we can turn projects round quickly, efficiently and to exceptionally high standards."

Breheny Civil Engineering is currently working on the Margate sea defence scheme near the town’s Turner Contemporary. This is another EKEP project involving engineers from the city council.

CCC 8 January 2013

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

Herne Bay Festival - it could be yours

OK folks, here you go - all the paperwork you need to apply to CCC to run the Herne Bay Festival this year. It's an 8 month contract worth £35,000 to the lucky winner. Closing date 9am 17th January 2013.

Reading through the Delivery Partner Brief, I found myself starting to wonder whether CCC is actually trying to discourage applications.

Pssst... wanna run a festival?

Hmmm... our beloved Council is looking for someone to run the HB Festival. You'll have to hurry though - the closing date for applications is 16th January 2013. Don't these people ever plan ahead? Do they really think they'll get the best possible applicants by leaving it until a few days before Christmas to publish the invitation to tender? Unless, of course, they've already got someone in mind...

---

Council seeks coastal festivals delivery partners

The city council is looking for organisations or individuals who think they have what it takes to build on the successes of the Whitstable Oyster Festival and Herne Bay Festival in 2013.

The successful delivery partners will take the established festival brands and develop an exciting programme of events and activities to take them to the next level.

Managing and delivering these popular events that regularly attract up to 15,000 people each year, the successful organisations will actively work within the local communities to shape, and help put their mark on, these annual community celebration events.

The council is keen to ensure that events and activities that are important to the local community, economy and visitors, such as the coastal festivals, are led by those that have the experience, specialisms and networks to ensure their future growth and success.

The council will be looking to contract new delivery partners for both festivals in early 2013. Expressions of interest from organisations or individuals are being sought through the south east business portal at www.businessportal.southeastiep.gov.uk , where the opportunities and individual requirements for each festival are set out. The closing date for expressions of interest is Wednesday 16 January 2013.

The council’s Head of Culture and Enterprise, Janice McGuinness, said: “The coastal festivals are an excellent example of how culture, tourism and our local economy can enhance our communities by promoting and celebrating what’s great about where we live.

“Ensuring our festivals are rooted within our local communities is key to their future development and growth, and the council looks forward to working with the new delivery partners.”

CCC 21 December 2012

Fury at plan to cap leases of beach hut

Here we go again - the vexed and thorny issue of beach huts: private pleasure on public land. It would be so much simpler if all beach huts on public land were Council-owned and Council-managed, and rented for a maximum of a year at a time with shorter term and seasonal lets available. If demand outstrips supply, the Council should gradually increase the charges until demand matches supply - a commercially sensible approach to its public responsibility to maximise the revenue from its assets.

---

City councillors are threatening to limit beach hut owners to a 30-year lease. Owners say the proposals would knock down prices and stop them from passing the huts on to their children. Some have stayed in families for more than 50 years. One Tankerton owner and barrister has waived her normal fees to help block the proposals.

The news leaked out during a meeting of the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners Association annual meeting. It is estimated it could affect 300 hut owners in Whitstable and Herne Bay.

The city council wants to force beach hut owners to move out after a maximum of 30 years. At the moment, leases can he renewed every year. Under new proposals the lease would be renewed every six years for a maximum of 30 years. After that, owners would have to remove their huts from the beach or sell them.

The council also wants to levy a £1,300 fee if the huts are sold and charge owners £1,260 if owners let out their huts in the summer. Huts in Tankerton fetch about £20,000. Six huts currently listed for sale on website beach-huts.com range from £17,000 to £25,000.

Pensioner John Richardson, 77, from Saddleton Road, Whitstable, said:

"I think the proposals are unlawful. We already have a lease. That can't be overwritten. These proposals would mean that for the last ten years of the lease owners won't bother looking after their huts. Tankerton will end up with lots of derelict huts. It will lose its charm. Individual hut owners look after their huts and give them characteristics that add to Whitstable's charm."

Marilyn Richards, secretary of the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners Association, remained tight-lipped:

"I can only say at this point that we are in ongoing discussions with Canterbury City Council about our hut ownership."

But Alan Ratford, chairman of Herne Bay Beach Hut Owners Association, said opposition was unanimous:

"At the moment I can sell my hut without restriction. If there is a 30-year cap, then the value of the hut will decrease. It's not a problem today but It will be tomorrow. We co-operate very well with the council but this is a major stumbling block."

Deborah Hickman, who runs Tiddly Pomme in Brogdale Market Place, Faversham, sold their beach hut three years ago for £20,000. She said:

"We are happy we sold when we did. The huts are a real money-spinner for Canterbury City Council. But it keeps wanting to add more. This proposal seems really greedy. For the people who have bought in the past ten years when prices shot up, it is horrendously unfair. It is a privilege to have a beach hut but it cost us £1,000 a year to keep ours. You can't just sit on it to make a fortune."

City council spokesman Steve James said:

"The council is engaging in confidential conversations with beach hut owners. The finite lease is merely speculation. No conclusions have been reached."

Whitstable Times 13th Dec 2012

Parking Consultation

It's good to know that people are taking the trouble to respond to the Council's Parking Consultation.... here's a good one:

First of all WE (Herne Bay) are not Canterbury, so why match our tariffs? Sooner you realise this the better it will be for Herne Bay.

1 - We don’t have the same facilities as Canterbury

2 - We don’t have the same variety of shops as Canterbury

3 - We don’t have the same footfall as Canterbury

4 - We don’t have the same customers as Canterbury

5 - We don’t have the same transport facilities as Canterbury

And most importantly

6 – The council don’t spend as much on Herne Bay as Canterbury for the redevelopments and shopping experiences, such as the Christmas lights! Out of the supposed £53,000 what did Herne Bay get? I know for a fact that it wasn’t an equal share, so why should we equal the price of Canterbury for anything!  (Business Rates, Parking or anything else!)

It was only 2012 when you raised the price to park for the day in Herne Bay from £1.10 to £2.50! That’s a MASSIVE 145% rise, and now you want to raise it further 20% on top!!!!!!!

As a business owner in Herne Bay we have seen a fall in trade since the rise in parking charges, as people bypass us and head to Westwood cross.

Are you actively trying to kill the town?!? People and traders would say you are!

This raise in parking will make trade even harder than it already is. It’s time for the council to stop being greedy and help the towns or we will all end up like Margate town centre, and then you won’t get any money for parking as no one will come to Herne Bay. It the same example as doubling prices you take double the money! This is NOT the case, if we all raised our prices by 145% at the beginning of 2012, and then put another 20% on top now we would be out of business, not rolling in the money! Why can’t you people work that out with the parking!!!!!

However, these emails are probably ignored and you do as you wish anyway, but if the parking prices are put up to be in line with Canterbury then we should have everything as equal. ALL, and I mean ALL budgets for everything should be shared 33% each to Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury. Now if you think the parking is a fair increase due to the Canterbury prices, then it’s only fair we get 33% of all money available.

I would like a response to this email, to make sure that our point has been heard!

Regards

Daniel Peters and John Potts (The Studio, Mortimer Street)

Charging for Parking a Boat

Our beloved Council does seem hell-bent on wringing every last penny out of everything in sight. One of their current wheezes is to charge boat-owners £100 + VAT to have their boats on the beach. As far as I can tell, the Council hasn't yet explained what the boat-owners might be getting in exchange for their hard-earned cash...

A reader writes...

I note with interest that boats parked on the beach at Herne Bay have a letter attached to them, this is for consultation regarding the Council's plans to charge these boat owners £100 per year for the privilege of leaving their boats on the beach.

The consultation response from boat owners is to be returned by 21st December, many boat owners will not have been to the beach during December so will not be aware of this consultation. It is a shame that the Council never publicised this matter more fully therefore allowing a full response from the boat owners.

One would assume that the Council are doing this to generate more money, are there any other reasons? Will the owners of boats benefit any way? How will it be monitored?

I would hate to see boats removed from the beach because owners were not able to afford the yearly chargers. As far as I can see all the boats in the Hampton area are secured on the beach in a sensible manner. The hard working members of the Angling Club must be worried that members will no longer be able to afford to continue boat fishing and the club will close, which would be another local amenity lost in Herne Bay.

Serco retains £40m contract to empty bins in Canterbury

SERCO has retained the £40 million contract to empty the bins of Whitstable, Herne Bay and Canterbury. The city council announced the decision on Tuesday.

It followed a controversial three-way pitch where councillors were forbidden to know which firm was bidding. Among them was Veolia which attracted many protests because of its connections with Israel. The new contract starts on April 1.

Councillors made the decision based on price and quality but could not release details until a ten-day "standstill" period to allow failed bidders the chance to appeal.

The new contract will include fortnightly doorstep collections of glass for the first time and a return to weekly collections of food waste.

Serco was Bidder 2 and came in with the lowest price of £39,289,911. The most expensive was almost £45.5 million. Decisions on the type and size of wheelie bins or boxes will now take place.

Head of Neighbourhood Services Larissa Laing said:

"All three companies put in very competent bids. We would like to thank the two unsuccessful companies for their interest. This is one of our most high profile contracts providing essential services to residents. The tender process has allowed us to create a high quality service while achieving excellent value for money for taxpayers. We now have a lot of work to do on getting the new waste collection system ready."

Council spokesman Rob Davies said:

"The tender was based on a price to quality ratio of 60 per cent/40 per cent. While we understand the concerns that were raised, we have been clear throughout this process that allegations about Veolia's activities in Palestine could not be a factor in determining who won the contract."

Other contracts still to be awarded include grounds maintenance, public toilets, building maintenance and office cleaning. Serco continues to hold the contract for these until the end of March. But councillors have taken the decision to split them into four smaller contracts from April 1.

Canterbury Times