Media frenzy

More press coverage, this time in the Herne Bay Times courtesy of their award-winning news-ferret. As media interest picks up, I'm planning ahead as far as negotiating the film rights. This is the time for all involved to start getting your bids in for you want to be played by. I would settle for Daniel Craig if he wasn't so sissy.

(I appear to have a touching faith in the police, according to the article.)

Whose baby?

By popular demand, here's the potted life history of CCC's Unlawful Shameful Proposal. (See "Timeline" for full dates and details.)

• The USP appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, in autumn 2008.
• The Herne Bay Councillors supported it, and told the Executive.
• The Executive liked it, published their public notice as "consultation", and waited to see if there were any objections.
• The objections were disregarded and the site was marketed.
• Around this time, I was made aware of the unfolding horror, and went to speak to the Council, armed with a sturdy petition. One of the questions I raised was the legality of the proposal.
• The Council's own legal eagles have said it's OK, but I'm convinced they're wrong.
• The Executive have been told that it's illegal, and they're having a bit of a think before reporting back to full Council.

That's all well and good as far as it goes, BUT it doesn't answer a key question:  Where was this evil hatchling spawned?

I can find no mention of it on the CCC website before 23rd September last year. There are several policy documents with an optimistic, broad-brush approach to conservation, tourism and regeneration, but none of them single out this particular strip of green. So where did this idea come from? Who has ownership?

Whose proposal is it?

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

​Photo 2

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

"Consultation"

In case you missed it (as most people did), here is what seems to be the full extent of CCC's public consultation. This was in the Public Notices section of the Herne Bay Gazette. In real life it measures 10cm x 12cm.

"... a small number of new beach huts ... " turns out to be 40. I had never thought of forty as a small number before.

Open question to CCC

Why use the back pages in a small circulation, paid-for paper for your "consultation"?

• It puts a cost barrier between your public and their democracy.
• It guarantees that the majority of your public won't have access to it, or be aware of it.
• The inevitably small number of objections can be mistaken for lack of opposition.
• It does no more than meet your bare minimum legal obligations.

Or have I just answered my own question?

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.