Arguments against West Beach café / beach huts grow stronger.

Plans by the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company (WOFC) to build a café and beach huts on West Beach could directly contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act, according to the Whitstable Beach Campaign (WBC). Research by the group has found that the development at West Beach, aside from being situated in a Conservation area, is also situated in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Protected Area (SPA) and afforded protected wetland status. (See Notes to Editors).

A spokesman for the Whitstable Beach Campaign said: “Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 it is illegal for owners of SSSI’s to instigate damaging operations without English Nature’s consent. English Nature’s own guidelines for the Swale SSSI (which covers West Beach) states that an operation “..likely to damage the special interest of the site…” includes “Erection of permanent or temporary structures, or the undertaking of engineering works, including drilling.” Permission is therefore required before WOFC can erect any structures of any sort on the beach, and this is exactly the sort of development that English Nature believes would be likely to cause damage.”

The WBC have written to English Nature outlining their concerns and drawing attention to the current absence of any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) having been undertaken on the site.

[Notes to Editors: The boundaries of the protected areas go up to the sea wall on the definitive map produced by English Nature.(“S.P.A / RAMSAR Site, Kent, produced by the Nature Conservancy Council for England, designation date 15/12/1993” and “Canterbury District Local Plan, Written statement and Proposals Map by CCC November 1998).]

I am writing to state my objections to planning application CA/02/01036/WHI as follows.

Conservation and ‘Reinstatement’
What exactly is the philosophy of conservation? If we want to change the windows in Wave Crest we have to replace them with exact copies of the original windows built into the properties about 100 years ago. Should we then also think of reinstating the three Island Wall boatyards, the squash club and the diving platform? Probably not. Times have changed. The argument that because there was once a café on the beach then it is right to build another (bigger and higher incidentally, not an exact copy) doesn’t seem to be valid. Use of the word ‘reinstatement’ is designed to fudge the issue, and the Council doesn’t add clarity by repeating it. This is a new development and should be looked at as such.

Notification of Residents.
As you will know there is a great deal of unrest over this proposal. Residents do not feel notification was adequate from the council, which is supposed to facilitate the democratic process, not enable it to be conveniently bypassed.

The Application
It would be more honest if the applicant had provided sketches of the view of the proposed buildings from all four aspects, so we have an idea of their visual impact. This must be particularly important for the people whose houses are immediately southeast of the tennis courts, but also from the points of view of walkers and beach users.

Beach Huts and Planning Permission
The application says that moveable, temporary buildings such as the proposed beach huts need no planning permission. There are various problems here. First is this true, considering the status of the beach, the conservation area etc? If it is true, then are you helpless in the face of any allegedly temporary structure anywhere? Secondly what constitutes moveable and temporary and are these beach huts consistent with that? If they are on skids as the developer suggests, they may be pushed over, blown over, washed away, burnt down. Does that make them moveable and temporary? Unless they are very small indeed it would be hard to simply carry them away – overnight say, like the barrow stalls in Canterbury – because the sea wall is quite narrow. I think it would need a crane, and where would they go then? I would like to suggest that in fact they are not temporary even if they are theoretically movable, perhaps dangerously so.

Vandalism
As is well known, the Green Hut, in theory a shelter for people wishing to sit and look at the beach and sea, is in practice a place for young people to gather, mainly in the evening but also daytime and overnight. Evening gatherings often involve quite big groups of people and are noisy, sometimes aggressive and generally destructive. Afterwards the beach and sea wall are usually strewn with broken glass, tiles off the roof of the hut and other debris. Drunken kids roam the beach and nearby gardens looking for something else to do. It can be frightening walking along the wall in front of the green hut, but at least it can be given a wide berth on the beach. If the café and beach huts are built there, that stretch of wall, which is a right of way and also part of the Saxon Shore Way, will be a bit of a no go area, especially in the evenings. The new buildings will be just something else to be congregated round, vandalized and at worst, burnt. Movable beach huts will no doubt be pushed over.

Walking along the beach.
Many people walk along the beach every day. Because of changes in level of the shingle from groin to groin, the flat upper part of the beach, where the groins are consistently low, is the only possible walking area. As far as I can see from the plans provided, the north west corner of the proposed café is drawn extremely close both to the groin to the west, and to the crest of the beach. It is not obvious from the plans, but because the levels of shingle are different from beach to beach, sometimes the drop is quite considerable. In other words the crests of the beaches between the groins are not parallel to the sea wall at the top of the beach. Nor are they fixed, the shingle moves, and does not have the same shape from beach to beach either. This property is one of the things that help the shingle safeguard the town from high seas. In this specific case the result is that walking along the beach will barely be possible on the seaward side of the proposed building. If the crest of the beach moves any further back towards the wall it will be impossible.

Amenity, health and safety.
Although there is no intention that the beach huts or café will be used overnight, it is inevitable that this will happen, as it does in the huts further west. This contributes to noise and rubbish, people will cook, will the toilets be open and unvandalised? will the litter bins be emptied often enough? Is there anything to stop loud music (people bring generators onto the beach for the evening and it destroys the amenity value for most of us.) This is primarily a residential area and a family beach, not a rave site. Most of the houses fronting the beach are permanent residences, not temporary holiday lets (in Wave Crest there are no holiday lets at all). We mainly have normal 9-5 work to do most of the year, including the summer and we need to lead normal lives, which include being able to sleep at night and being able to keep our surroundings fairly clean and safe.

Conclusion
The tourist phenomenon that Whitstable has become, which has taken us all by surprise and has diminished the quality of life for many long time residents of the town, is based mainly on its slightly time warped atmosphere and gentle ambiance. Every new development seeking, understandably, to exploit the influx of visitors to the town also contributes to the destruction of the environment that drew visitors in the first place. Please bear this in mind when making your recommendations.

Maureen Ritchie, Wave Crest, Whitstable

We are surprised that Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company does not keep its shareholders better informed.

They neglected to give proper information to Wendy Mitchell who wrote last week supporting their plan to build a beach café.

She wants a place to have a cuppa away from the cold winter winds. But the café will only be open for a couple a months in the summer, so she'll be disappointed there.

Evidently the custom of hardy Whitstable dog-walkers alone is not an economic proposition for Mr Barry Green.

Whtistable Beach Campaigner
Published 17.10.02

The cafe and takeaway development proposed for the beach at Whitstable is described as a 'reinstatement' of a previous building.

Although maths was never my strong point, I'm confused as to how anyone believs this to be the case since the building was 32 sq m in size and is now proposed to be a building 68 sq m in size.

It's a development, and along with its doubling in size, it has also changed from being a timber structure in the planning application to what James Green now describes as a 'brick and weatherboarding construction'.

In addition to the cafe and takeaway development there are also proposals to construct 13 'temporary' beach huts.

These structures are not like deckchairs that can be set out every morning and packed away again at night.

So now 32 sq m equals 68 sq m, temporary is permanent and brick is the same a wood!

Simon Pope, Marine Terrace, Whitstable
Published 10.10.02

The Whitstable Society applied to the city council for an Article 4 Direction to be placed on the beaches of central Whitstable to protect the environmental aspect of those beaches more strictly than at present. The city council considered our request several times, but decided that an Article 4 Direction was not needed.

Since then the situation has changed, with proposals to site temporary beach huts on some of the beaches, and the Society has therefore asked the city council to reconsider its decision about the Article 4 Direction.

The Direction forbids nothing, but it brings into planning control many minor developments which are otherwise outside planning controls. It is widely used in other situations by our Council, such as on the Seasalter marshes, and is a tool which the planners can use when other remedies do not exist within the law.

Mrs A Wilks, The Whitstable Society,
King Edward Street, Whitstable
Published 10.10.02

The proposal to 'reinstate' the Red Spider cafe in front of the West Beach tennis courts sounds so innocent - but look at the plans and you'll see something else.

What's proposed is already twice the size of the original from long ago. Soon we'd see it stealthily expanding further onto the beach.

After that we'd see this single building outside the sea wall being used as a precedent for rows of beach huts and other constructions.

The Red Spider plan is the beginning of the commerciaisation of the beach whose peacefulness is what makes Whitstable so special. Look at the plans. It's the same story as the old film 'It's a wonderful life', where James Stewart saw a nighmare vision of the future of his home town. If people don't put a stop to this project now, we'll end up being charged for setting foot on the beach.

John Ellis, Marine Terrace, Whitstable
Published 3.10.02

The undeveloped open character of West Beach is a vital ingredient of the unique charm of Whitstable .

This seashore is a major year round attraction for residents and visitors. The proposed café development and beach huts would begin the process of obscuring the wonderful sea view and our celebrated sunsets from the public coastal path.

West Beach has been sympathetically adapted, at great public expense, to meet demands for modern flood protection.

Several years ago an alternative scheme to raise the sea wall was dismissed by the council as it would have ruined the unrestricted sea view which is valued as characteristic of Whitstable.

Local people financed the flood defences and campaigned for them to be in a form that also created a valued amenity.
This development would cynically exploit the designed structure of West Beach in a manner calculated to obliterate the unique appeal of the location.

Residents and visitors welcomed the recent provision of disabled access to this section of the coastal path so that all could enjoy the view.

To obscure this provision with tall structures suggests a serious disregard of disability rights.
The new development is planned to offer service only during the summer.

This area is already agreeably served by a local public house with outdoor family seating and an excellent local shop offering food, drinks, ice creams and beach goods.
Both businesses offer similar refreshments to the proposed café, and are open throughout the year. Cherry-picking the richer summer takings could endanger the existing businesses so that, ultimately, local residents and visitors would receive less provision.

Free standing beach huts are an unmitigated health and safety hazard at any time of the year, due to the frequency of gale force northerly winds.

Even in the summer months I’ve seen tethered dinghies turned over by high winds. The chances of a serious accident are predictable and the council has a duty of care not to facilitate such a foolhardy proposal.

There is already substantial over capacity on the narrow residential roads in this area. No provision for extra traffic generated by the new café and beach huts is proposed.
Parking problems are not addressed, service and emergency access is ignored.

I trust that a full assessment of the vehicular impact of this development will be undertaken. I’ve recently heard gossip that the tennis courts are about to be developed as an extra car park.

Perhaps the developer has heard this rumour too.
The council should confirm their long-term commitment to the tennis courts’ present location to end speculative proposals based on the assumption that there will shortly be increased parking in this area.

Laurence Barnes, Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable
Published 3.10.02

With regard to the proposals reported in last week’s newspaper relating to the construction of café premises and beach huts on the town’s beach:

The Oyster Fishery Company appear to be attempting to hoodwink the Canterbury City Planning Department into agreeing that beach huts do not require planning permission.

The plans are alarming as, if they are not stopped, then we can confidently predict that within a short period, the entire town’s beach will be covered in beach huts. It’s naïve to think otherwise.

The proposals also provide for the construction of a new café. Although quaintly named the “Red Spider Café” it’s clear that it will bear no resemblance to the original.

The proposals are for a structure more than twice the size of the original with a decking surround which will, no doubt, accommodate further marquee-like structures.

Whitstable’s beach is the town’s main attraction It should be preserved for the benefit of the town.

Jeremy Ferris, Marine Terrace, Whitstable
Published 3.10.02

As a local resident, I too heard nothing about the proposed private beach development until it was too late.

I'm very confused though. If private companies are allowed to build because of previous dwellings, then what will we see next: mock Georgian townhouses on Reeves Beach, fake Roman villas in front of Wavecrest, tacky neolithic stone forts at the bottom of Tankerton slopes?

I'm also confused to hear the claim that the beach is privately owned. If so, why does public money pay for 'private' beach defences? Why do council workers clean up an apparently privately-owned beach every day?

I'll call on the people who claim ownership to put the deeds on display in one of their many premises. And even if private ownership were proved it would be a disgrace: whoever heard of an up-and-coming seaside resort in Britain whose beach suddenly went private?

I think it high time these shenanigans were brought to a stop forever - the council should issue a compulsory purchase order cover the area, or whatever other legal measures are needed to secure indefinite full public access and no private development on the beach.

Given that all three parties on the council support privatisation, it will be down to local people to campaign to force the council to keep the beach permanently public and unavailable for private land speculation

T Behan, Island Wall, Whitstable
Published 3.10.02

I have been in communication with Mr. Ted Edwards, Engineering Manager, and some concerns have come to light with respect to the above development. I am concerned about the risk that this development would present to the integrity of the sea wall in times of flood. The revised proposal to make the building longer and narrower to accommodate sea defence work would present an even larger area to the waves in times of storm surge.
Professional advice I have received indicates that movement of the beach shingle could displace the timber pilings that are the sole foundations for this building. I note that for permanent buildings behind the sea wall (e.g. Daniels Court) you have required reinforced concrete pilings down to the clay bedrock, and that the groynes themselves go down that far.

The siting of this development, squeezed between the high water mark and the most vulnerable section of the sea wall, could not be worse. Mr. Edwards has acknowledged that timber piles in the water can do a lot of damage. I would draw your attention to the Posford, Pavry Report “Whitstable Sea Defences” which makes particular reference to this effect (p22):

8.1 Potential additional structural damage by sea waves, sea spray and water borne material.
Sea front properties are prone to additional damage – over and above that expected by inundation alone – owing to the action of sea waves, sea spray and water borne material including debris and shingle.

The report goes on to make particular reference to those areas most at risk from flooding:

We have identified those sections of existing sea wall to be potentially unstable; they are at or near:
The Tennis Courts
The Pearsons Arms
Marine Terrace

As you will note from the Posford Pavry Report, two out of three of the potentially unstable sea wall sections are immediately adjacent to the proposed development. The specific area identified as most at risk of breach is “… at the tennis courts in the area of the Red Spider Café” (p5). The report goes on to state that (p59):

“The zone appears to be an area particularly susceptible to inundation: residents state that shingle has previously had to be swept from the five tennis courts, and an exposed shelter with pavilion may be damaged. The Red Spider Café is exposed on the beach, and although it has in previous events been relatively unscathed, this may not always be the case.”

According to the Posford Pavry report: “The area identified as being likely to be prone to sea flooding contains approximately 2200 residences and has an estimated resident population of about 5600” (1985 figures).

The clear conclusion to be drawn from the above is that the proposed development would increase the probability of damage to an already “potentially unstable” sea wall and, at the very least, exacerbate damage to nearby properties in the event of a flood. The reality is that no-one knows what would happen in the event of a flood and that is precisely the reason why the Posford Pavry report was commissioned and why clear guidelines in the Canterbury Local Plan, the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and PPG25 exist. However, given the near-inevitability of the event, it is surely prudent to err on the side of caution. PPG 25 clearly advises the following course of action in respect of development in areas of flood risk:

72. The assessment of the significance of flooding issues requires careful professional judgement. The developer is responsible for ensuring the safe development and secure future occupancy of his site and should ensure that appropriate expertise is available to carry out any necessary investigations and to design and execute any necessary flood alleviation works. While the local planning authority will need to consider flooding issues in the public interest, it is entitled to require the developer to provide at application stage suitable expert advice from an appropriately qualified competent person on such matters. To inform a developer’s assessment, the Environment Agency should make available any relevant flood-risk information subject to their normal charging policy. The Agency should also be aware of the reliance that developers and their experts may place on the information provided in terms of local flooding conditions and flood risk. A local planning authority is not required to carry out its own assessment of flood risk but may rely on the developer’s information, subject to any views expressed by consultees, particularly those of the Environment Agency, in determining the application and any necessary conditions. Those providing such expert advice should be aware of the reliance that may be placed on it.

It is certain that the construction of the café and its pilings will affect the design parameters under which the beach was constructed and Canterbury City Council are duly bound by PPG 25 to request a comprehensive risk assessment from the developer. The applicant should be required to carry out detailed hydrological investigations to determine the risks at this particular site so that everything from the design of buildings and mitigation measures, to the overall assessment of the viability of the project may be assessed. This Quantitative Risk Assessment should include the issues raised by the Posford Pavry report above and a hydro-
geological logical survey to determine the effect of piling on the beach movement, erosion etc etc. Its results should form part of the planning documents, open to public scrutiny.

I am sure that you share the concerns of the many hundreds of residents who are situated behind the sea wall at West Beach. We would very much appreciate the support of the Canterbury City Council in our opposition to this inappropriate and unsafe development.

Paul McNally, Island Wall, Whitstable
25 November 2002

I hope I am not too late to add my objection to the application by the Whitstable Oyster Fisheries Company to build a cafe & beach huts on West Beach. I would have objected sooner but, like other planning applications in the area, we were not informed by the council.

This development is an appalling idea and will change substantially a beach much-used and loved by residents. The problems with parking are terrible at present in this area and need resolving by the council by way of a resident 'permit only' zone along the sea front. This development will make parking impossible. It makes life a lot harder for my family to go about our daily lives with so many visitors taking up whole streets of parking spaces.

The town is well catered for in terms of eating places and does not need another. I doubt as well if the beach huts will benefit many local people; I imagine that one would need to be extremely well-off to get one.

I must say that I am extremely surprised that you are giving an application to build on any part of the beach at Whitstable much consideration; it seems so obviously wrong. I imagine however that the views of the majority of local residents will prevail given that the council is democratically accountable.

Tim Jackson, Island Wall, Whitstable
e-mailed on 28.10.02

I am writing to make strong objections to the above planning application on the following grounds:

Parking
As you can see from my address, I am on the road, which is frequently used by visitors to West Beach. As a local I often cannot park my car. This has been exacerbated by planning permission being given to a Nursery School across the road. Employees of the nursery and parents already take the available parking spaces. Proposals for residents’ parking in Nelson Road and surrounding roads were made by Canterbury City Council but these did not materialise. This additional proposal for 13 beach huts and a cafe would make the situation intolerable and harm the environment further.

Disturbance
The increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic flows would cause unnecessary further disturbance to this residential area. Noise congestion and litter would further increase.

Need
There is no demand for the cafe in particular. There is a corner shop at the end of Island Wall, which meets refreshment needs, and there are other cafes in the area.

Conservation
The plans are not sympathetic to the environment. The building is too imposing and will spoil the overall view and setting.

Local Plan
As far as I am aware, there is no provision for additional beach huts and a cafe in the local area.

Devaluation of Property
For the above reasons I am anxious that the value of my property would be reduced. This conservation area of Whitstable would be undermined if the proposals were to go ahead.

TM & LM Littlewood, Nelson Road, Whitstable

We are writing to object to the proposed "reinstatement" of the Red Spider Café building on West Beach Whitstable, along with the appended claim that beach huts can be erected without permission. We have several grounds for objection.

1. The proposal radically affects the character and appearance of a conservation area.

2. The café building appears to be substantially larger than the original rather modest structure, and is out of character in both design and colour with the conservation area.

3. The proposal for a catering establishment takes no account of the plentiful supply of cafés in Whitstable, and will generate considerable litter and noise in a sensitive area whose character is defined below.

4. The surrounding area already has problems of inadequate parking and access. Such a development will exacerbate these problems. Further we believe that such difficulties of access will make the seasonal removal of the suggested beach huts totally impractical. They will therefore have the character of permanent buildings and so should be subject to a proper planning application and not a flippant aside.

5. Current government revisions of planning law include reform of the legislation concerning temporary structures in order to prevent the process whereby "temporary" structures acquire permanent status. The proposals regarding beach huts should therefore be ruled out in the light of impending legislation.

6. The proposal to "reinstate" the café building takes no account of the changed nature of the beach since the original disappeared. The level of the foreshore has been raised as a result of sea defence work. The area from the Neptune Pub towards Seasalter has acquired a distinct character. It is now predominantly used for quiet recreation by local residents and visitors alike. There is a steady stream of walkers and joggers in both summer and winter. The area forms a distinctive leisure amenity more to do with tranquillity and open space rather than sitting, sunbathing etc. The proposed development is completely incompatible with the character of the area.

7. The beach in this area adjoins the Swale Site of Special Scientific Interest, which includes the Seasalter Levels Local Nature Reserve. The EC Directive of April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds requires member states to take appropriate steps to avoid "the deterioration of habitats or any disturbance affecting birds" within Special Protected Areas of which the Swale is one. The area is of critical importance for migratory birds. The bird life attracted to the SSSI are less aware than humans of the boundaries of the area, and so are regularly seen on the area of the beach which is subject to this application. Scarce or protected species seen here in numbers at or near the tide mark include curlews, redshanks, oystercatchers, turnstones, black-tailed godwits and ringed and Kentish plovers.

8. Since the level of the beach was raised, the resulting area has seen the growth of protected flora like the yellow horned poppy and sea kale as well as more common wild plants such as fennel. The resulting seeds now provide regular feeding for now threatened species such as starlings and house and field sparrows (whose populations according to the RSPB have declined rapidly, according them red list status).

9. As a result of the raising of the foreshore some years ago, a distinctive new habitat has been created. The beach now has the form of a ‘vegetated shingle ridge’, that is a stable area of shingle above the reach of the waves that has
become colonised by vegetation. Such a habitat is recognised by the EU Habitats Directive as of European importance for conservation, especially, as here, when it
is found in conjunction with mudflats.

10. The proposed development will result in the destruction of this valuable resource and feeding area. According to the draft Canterbury District Local Plan, "Plants and animals are not confined to designated wildlife sites but can occur throughout the District. PPG9 and Regional Planning Guidance (policy E2) both confirm that the presence of protected species is a material consideration in considering development proposals" (6.124). In addition, the plan states "Outside sites that have special designation the City Council aims to safeguard and enhance bio-diversity throughout the District irrespective of location" (6.121).

11. This area of beach is a locally important coastal site. It should be recognised as such, irrespective of questions of ownership, so that its specific character and importance to wildlife is fostered. The Swale estuary is an internationally important marine and foreshore resource in an area which is coming under increasing pressure from the demands of many kinds of development. Any planning application of this kind should therefore be assessed within the overall context of the management of the Swale Estuary. Allowing development on the beach itself would create a dangerous precedent. We therefore request that the council reject this application absolutely.

John Ellis, Island Wall, Whitstable

I would like to object to the proposed cafe building and beach huts on West Beach, Whitstable, on the grounds that:

The development includes no provision for accommodating the increased traffic generated by the new cafe and beach huts. There is no provision for extra traffic, short and longer term parking, service and emergency access. I trust that a full assessment of the vehicular impact of this development will be undertaken and published.

There is already substantial overcapacity on the narrow service roads in this area and any extra congestion will deny access by delivery vehicles to my business. In addition private and staff parking will be blocked by an increase of inappropriately parked vehicles attracted into the area.

Keith Flynn (Licensee), The Old Neptune
Marine Terrace, Whitstable

Back to the future

Having just looked at your website for the first time, I have mixed feelings about the development of the beach.

I have fond memories of the Red Spider cafe just in front of the tennis courts and am sure that it contributed to the "traditional" seaside holiday of a schoolboy. So why shouldn't people be allowed to have that same warm feeling today?

The difference between then and now, I would guess, is that a Cafe would not be for the benefit of holidaying schoolboys and strolling day visitors, but more for the "business" itself. No business-man would set up an operation without planning to increase sales and that would inevitably lead to the need to attract more punters and sell them more stuff. The biggest worries here would surely be of parking loitering
and littering. DONT LET IT HAPPEN.

One alternative idea could be to reinstate the Red Spider in its original form, selling no more that cups of tea and ice-cream wafers. It could be owned by the community (and /or council)and run by a couple of local resident pensioners on a not-for-profit (but for-the-community) basis. This would control and promote some of the more traditional values of Whitstable the sea-side town.

Keep Whitstable west beach the way we've always loved it. Back to the future? Lets go forward to the Past!

Tim Morley
Received by e-mail 21.10.02

I am totally in support of your campaign since I am a resident of Island Wall, and my husband and I have written to Canterbury City Council raising our objections to the proposed development by the WOFC.

Please could you tell me when there is likely to be a decision made by the Council either supporting or rejecting the application, and also details of any public meetings that are coming up. Also, I have a young child so may not be able to attend the meetings - will the minutes or a general summary of what took place be available on the website?

I think it's great that you're encouraging people to make a stand and get involved with the issues, and your website is an excellent forum for this to be possible. I can't believe that I only found out about the development by chance when a neighbour dropped some information through our letterbox.

As it turns out, the proposed cafe will be slap bang in the centre of our limited sea view, which means, if it goes ahead, we won't have one at all! How can Canterbury City Council have thought that we wouldn't be directly affected?

Keep up the good work and feel vindicated that there is a huge amount of local support for the Whitstable Beach Campaign! I look forward to hearing from you regarding any further developments th the planning application. Best wishes

Adele Mason, Island Wall
Received by e-mail 23.10.02