Beach: cleaner

A motley crew of hardy local volunteers scoured the shoreline by The Downs last Sunday in a regular beach clean and rubbish survey. It was pure happenstance that we weren't out the previous week, when we would have been drenched and frozen in a howling north-easterly. As it was, we had a lovely bright morning - "brilliant blue sunshine" as my Gran would say.

Unsurprisingly, picking up all this crap changes (or perhaps just hardens) my opinion of rubbish and rubbishers. Crisp bags are evil. Ever wondered how it is that crisps can stay crunchy for months in the bag, but soggify within hours of exposure to real life? The answer, my friend, is blowing along our beaches. Crisp bags are made of some kind of micro-engineered multi-layer laminate that (a) would put NASA to shame, and (b) is as impervious to the forces of Nature as an artefact from an alien civilisation. If you seek immortality, just print your name on a bloody crisp bag.

Cotton buds: bastard little things. For reasons that escape me, some people automatically flush their used cotton buds down the loo. The filtering systems in the sewage works are, of course, designed with turds and turdlets in mind. The cotton buds fly like miniature safety javelins through the grills and meshes, and down the pipes to the open sea. The cottony ends obligingly disintegrate, but the little plastic sticks just bob around forever. There's millions of them all round the British coast, simply because people don't have the wit to bin them rather than flushing them. If there are bio-degradable cotton buds with wooden or cardboard sticks, they should be compulsory.

Apparently, ships sailing out of Tilbury are major culprits for littering the sea, and not just with cotton buds and crisp bags - I'm guessing the plastic cutlery is theirs. I am reliably informed by wise seadogs that it's standard practice for ships in port to use a large oil drum or two as an all-purpose rubbish bin, and then empty the lot overboard as they leave the estuary for the open sea. Scumbags.

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.

Rover has a drink

We spotted this car bobbing about in the sea when we were about half way round the first ever Bounds of The Downs, mid-winter 2009. When the coastguard found there was nobody (or no body) inside, they lost interest. I would have thought they would be concerned about the hazard to small boats...

---

Mystery surrounds how this silver Rover ended up taking a dip in the sea. It made a splash with 15 hikers who spotted it while taking a Sunday morning stroll. One witness said:

"I've heard of a car wash but this was ridiculous. It will end up a costly mistake for someone."

Initially it was believed the car had been left on the beach below the Downs at Herne Bay near Reculver Drive by its owner who failed to retrieve it before the tide came in. But police spokesman Jane Walker said:

"When we called the owner she said she had parked it in the town and thinks it was stolen and dumped on the beach."

The owner is footing the bill to get the car fished out of the sea. The alarm was raised by Phil Rose of Beacon Hill who called the coastguard at 10.50am on Sunday. He said:

"We had been walking and came across the car bobbing about in the sea and slowly drifting to the east. The Whitstable lifeboat arrived 15 minutes later."

Thames Coastguard spokesman Walter Holliday said:

"When the lifeboat arrived all the crew could see was the car's aerial sticking out of the water. Their first priority was to check there was no one trapped inside. Fortunately it was empty."

After reporting the precise position of the car to coastguards the lifeboat crew returned to base at Whitstable Harbour. It was their 74th call of the year.

HB Times 2009-12-22

Councillors break oath of silence

There's much rib-tickling japery in the current HB Times. I'm tempted to start up a TV show called "Councillors say the funniest things" which would feature elected representatives trying to keep a straight face while spouting nonsense, distortions, half-truths, non sequitors and unsupported assertions. Some of our guys must be up to national standard.

Except for the current plans for The Downs, which the CCC Executive Committee made CONFIDENTIAL in July. Cllr Vickery-Jones sits on that Committee. He voted to make these plans CONFIDENTIAL, yet he now insists there are no secret plans. "There are no secret plans" - says the man who made the current development plans CONFIDENTIAL! If the plans aren't secret, would Cllr Vickery-Jones release them to the HB Times for publication, or put them on display in the Council Offices in Herne Bay? Or maybe there's a subtle distinction between 'secret' and 'confidential' that I'm missing.

First I've heard of this, although the Council did try to pull this stunt sometime in the 1960s, so I'm told. This may be nothing more than a straw man, that they put up just to knock down.

Obviously, it would be easier to get more facts if the Executive (which includes Cllr Vickery-Jones) hadn't made them all CONFIDENTIAL. Neither Councillor actually identifies any of the 'misinformation' they say has been spread. There is no misinformation on the leaflet, just facts.

Oh, how I laughed! We have spoken to ALL the Councillors at least once. In January 2009 we were in email contact with Cllr Vickery-Jones, when we had to explain to him exactly where the beach huts going to be sited - on the grassy slopes, not the concrete path as he had mistakenly thought. So much for getting your facts straight!

Just to straighten up a few other facts: as well as the email exchange (available at your request) with Cllr Vickery-Jones, there was at least one lengthy phone call in January 2009; we have presented a speech and 135-signature petition to full Council; we have twice addressed the Executive Committee (Cllr Vickery-Jones was present on both occasions); and we have fruitlessly asked for information from Council officers, who were gagged by the Executive's CONFIDENTIALITY order.

This isn't about beach huts, it's about saving The Downs.

What's got so many people in Herne Bay so riled is that the Council even thinks it can touch The Downs. Cllr Vickery-Jones is right about the legal covenants - they say that The Downs must be kept as an open space and pleasure ground for all the people of Herne Bay forever. So why has the Council even started de-designating bits of it?

This the Council's current favourite cover story for the development - it's replacing or reinstating the wooden beach huts that were there before. Oops! The earlier beach huts were in breach of the legal covenants on the land. They were illegal. The proposed beach huts would also be illegal. It would be a repeat offence!

N.B. All snippets were snipped from the HB Times 16th September 2009, front page and page 3.

Open to Interpretation

Wouldn't you know it? Nothing for ages, and then a flurry. Canterbury City Council have finally produced their Draft Open Spaces Strategy, and a rattling good read it is.

Section 5 has some good stuff in it:

Sage words. Fine words. Dear reader, imagine my consternation and disappointment when I found this, tucked away in a far distant Appendix:

Despite the King's Hall slopes and The Downs being 'existing open spaces', CCC are proposing to develop some kind of 'interpretation project', defeating the aims and objectives of their declared Strategic Vision. I must admit to being somewhat mollified by this proposal being equal 14th in a prioritised list of 17 to be spread over the next 5 years. Time enough, I thought rashly, to persuade CCC of their folly. Hey ho.

On the Agenda for the CCC Executive's meeting for the 30th July, a frustratingly secret item:The standard excuse for excluding the press and public from the sausage-making ugliness of Councillors in action is that there is some kind of commercial confidentiality at stake. (Remind me, whose money is it that they're spending?) So what's going on?

In the beginning, so rumour has it, A Developer approached A Councillor and convinced her/him that The Downs was ripe for development. Said Councillor presented the idea to the Council. The Hive-mind cried "Desist! The constraints of good governance, that chafe us so, compel us to solicit competitive bids - this cannot be seen to be a stitch-up or shoo-in!".

There was some hasty tendering, and all looked set fair to continue as originally planned. Oops! Local irritants highlighted the illegality of breaching the covenants on the land. CCC's legal advisers told them all was well. The Irritants pointed out that they were mistaken. Everything went quiet, supposedly while the legal position was examined more closely. Suddenly, the proposal re-surfaces, although shrouded in secrecy.

My interpretation is:

• through poor legal advice, or sheer bravado, or blind greed, CCC has convinced itself that commercial development of The Downs is not illegal;
• they have received proposals that they believe circumvent the restrictions stated in the legal covenants that came with the land when it passed to them;
• CCC will want to impose their preferred bidder, regardless of the legality, or the local opposition.

I look forward to finding out exactly how My Council proposes to spend My Money, defiling My Town. Personally, I believe that Councillors who wilfully pursue an illegal course of action should be responsible for any and all costs that arise. Once upon a time, they would have been - it was called surcharging.