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.

Standing up and speaking out

My first public act of flagrant democratic intercourse, beyond voting, that is: a speech to CCC, 15th Jan 2009.

This proposal is unwanted, unneeded and ill-conceived. You are proposing to act without the permission, and against the wishes, of those you serve. The Downs is a Public Open Space, entrusted by the people of Herne Bay to the Council to be enjoyed by all, in perpetuity.

One legal covenant says it must be:

“… kept as an open space and pleasure ground for the recreation, and use, and enjoyment of the public forever”.

In the hands of a private developer it won’t be. Another covenant says that:

“… nothing shall be erected or built on the land as shall obstruct the view of any of the houses known as the Beacon Hill estate, and the Lees estate, and the land fronting to Beacon Hill”.

These huts would obstruct the view.

There have been huts at East Cliff before.
• Originally they were concrete and brick structures built into the bottom of the slope; with nothing on the slope; with no views obstructed; and were owned and managed by the Council.
• Later, wooden huts were built on the slope, and obstructing the view: they fell into disuse, were neglected and vandalised to the point of dereliction, and the Council demolished them.

The Government’s Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) states:

• existing Open Space should not be built on unless it is clearly shown to be surplus to requirements.

This is not.

• developers of Open Spaces must consult the community and be able to demonstrate that their proposals are widely supported by them.

These are not.

We are at (or near) the bottom of a property cycle, making this is a particularly awful time to be disposing of land. The intention to lease the land to a private developer has raised widespread concerns about accountability for maintenance, hygiene and security.

There’s already permission for 44-67 more huts elsewhere in Herne Bay, Whitstable and Tankerton. Currently, Whitstable’s reining in development due to lower than usual occupancy, and having no waiting list. There is no waiting list for the existing huts in Herne Bay. There is an over-supply of huts, and there is no demand for huts at East Cliff.

It is very unlikely that the proposed huts will significantly help regenerate Herne Bay, as has been suggested. The hutters bring their own supplies - far from the pub and further from the shops, they will be hard-pressed to spend money on anything.

With the nearest loo ¼ mile away at the King’s Hall, some people will take the lazy option and use the sea: so much for our Blue Flag beach status. The proposed site borders the Thanet Coast SSSI and is a RAMSAR and SAC site of national and international importance to wildlife. The Council is expected to conserve and enhance the SSSI - this proposal does neither. The land is also home to slow worms (a protected species) which will be put at risk – Kent Wildlife Trust have expressed concern.

The East Cliff is special because it is quiet, peaceful and undeveloped. It is unstable scrubland, where both the land and the huts will need protection from landslip and in dry summers, fire. The nearest parking (on Beacon Hill) is fully parked in the summer as it is: where will the extra cars go?

The “consultation” over this change in the legal status of a Public Open Space seems to have consisted of a small ad in a local paper which is read by less than 10% of Herne Bay’s population . There is strong and widespread local opposition, and of the 135 signatories on this petition, only 2 were already aware of this proposal – clearly the public consultation process has been woefully inadequate.

You are proposing to act without the permission, and against the wishes, of those you serve. For more than a 100 years the people of Herne Bay have, in all good faith, entrusted their land to you. This proposal betrays that trust.

Timeline

2008-Sep-23
Herne Bay Area Members Panel, Agenda Item 38.
The Unlawful Shameful Proposal (USP) sees the light of day for the first time. The Panel thought:

• in principle the project was a good idea;
• the normal consultation procedures should be used;
• this was a good location for beach huts;
• it was hoped that any beach huts in this location could be painted and named;
• would the procurement rules delay the project;
• could a planning application be made at the same time as the disposal was advertised;
• was there any lighting at this location?

The Panel said they would:

• support the disposal of Public Open Space to the east of the old lookout station at East Cliff, Herne Bay;
• recommend that any negotiations relating to the use for this site be subject to the wider market.

WHAT?!? "...support the disposal of Public Open Space..." Without asking? Without knowing what we want? What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

The Government's national guidelines for how to look after Public Open Spaces are strict about disposing of a Public Open Space. They say that the land must be shown to be 'surplus to requirements', and that any development must shown to be 'widely supported by the local community'. Looks to me like 'No' and 'No'.

2008-Oct-13
Executive Committee Item 136.
They decide to advertise the proposed disposal of Public Open Space, and consider any objections at a later Executive meeting.

2008-Oct-17
First media sighting on thisiskent.co.uk.

2008-Oct-23 and Oct-30
Ad in Public Notices, Herne Bay Gazette - see "Consultation".

2008-Nov-18
Herne Bay Area Members Panel, Item 5 Matters Arising...
Reporting the decision of the Executive on October 13th.

2008-Dec-03
Executive Committee Item 195.
The Council's laughable consultation exercise has produced five letters of objection, one of them from our very own Councillor Reuby. Continuing the long-running insult to democracy, the objections are brushed aside, and it's full steam ahead with marketing the site. (Incidentally, I've not seen the marketing effort. If anyone's got any details, I would be grateful - I'm curious to know how it compares to the Public Notice.)

2008-Dec-19
I’m tipped off by my neighbour.

2009-Jan-15
Speech to Council.

2009-Jan-22
Herne Bay Gazette front page, inside pages and op-ed. Then nothing…

2009-Jan-24
Blog kick-started.

2009-Feb-05
Executive Committee: Speech.