The following document is the Whitstable Beach Campaign’s (WBC’s) response to a number of statements made by the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company’s (WOFC’s) spokesmen and representatives relating to the original 2002 application.

• WOFC says – “They (the huts) do not form part of the proposal. This application is nothing to do with beach huts.” ((Peter Jackson, Whitstable Times – October 3 page 5).

• WBC says – The submitted architects plans, a key component of the application, have elevation drawings of the beach huts above the heading “Notional Elevation of Proposed Temporary Beach Huts.” If they are “proposed”, then they are (of course) part of the proposal. WOFC’s has contended that the beach huts “.. do not require planning permission.”(Radio Kent interview with James Green – Friday October 4 – aortal transcript available ant the BBC Radio Kent section) because they are ‘temporary’ structures, and are therefore not applying for permission to erect the huts because (in their view) planning permission is not needed. WBC has learnt that CCC have now asked the architects to resubmit the application without the huts to create a clear distinction between the separate issues surrounding the huts and the café because of the confusion this has caused.

However, if they were NOT part of the proposal, why then did Barrie Green describe his plans in an interview with the Guardian newspaper (October 8) as “…a café and a couple of dozen beach huts…” if the beach huts were NOT part of his plans? Incidentally, he now refers to “…a couple of dozen beach huts..” (his words and not those of the WBCs as reported last week) which is nearly double the number on his architects drawing submitted to the CCC planning department.

• WOFC says – “We definitely don’t need planning permission (for the beach huts).” (James Green – BBC Radio Kent Friday October 4)

• WBC says – Developers are obligated to consult with the Governments statutory body, English Nature as part of any planning application of this nature. Under the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act it is illegal for owners of SSSI’s to instigate damaging operations without English Nature’s consent. Under English Nature’s own ‘Potentially Damaging Operations ’guidelines for the Swale SSSI (of which West Beach comprises a part) its 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 to an SSSI.

• WOFC says – “The Conservation Area is wrong. It only goes to the sea wall. The beach is not included in it.”
“(the development) is not in the inter-tidal zone. The SSSI is below the high water mark.”
Both excerpts from BBC Radio Kent interview with James Green.

• WBC says – exhaustive research by members of the Campaign has shown both these statements to be wrong. The land on which the café and proposed huts will be situated is covered by a number of protective designations. West Beach up to the sea wall has been scheduled as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (an SSSI), a Special Protected Area, and RAMSAR site (Wetland of International importance) since 1993 along with it being within a designated Conservation area (See Notes to editors in Attached Press Release). The proposed site for development is therefore covered by 4 different levels of protection.

The habitat at West Beach is classified as ‘vegetated shingle’, a Kent wildlife habitat recognised by the EU Habitat Directive as of European importance for conservation especially when it is found in conjunction with mud flats (as it is at West Beach). Since the level of the beach was raised, the resulting area has seen the growth of protected flora associated with vegetated shingle, like the sea holly (an indicator species in the Kent biodiversity action plan for targeted action – digital photos are available showing sea holly just a few feet from where the Red Spider would be situated) and other protected species like yellow horned poppy (deign photos again available showing yellow horned poppy directly in front of site of proposed beach huts). Work on identifying other endangered plants like sea kale and hogs fennel is in progress.

To date, no Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed site for development appears to have been been commissioned or undertaken by either the developer, or English Nature. This is a major concern for the WBC. All of these points have been made by WBC in a comprehensive letter to English Nature, with enclosures a copy of which is available.

• WOFC says “This will be a nice place to go for a cup of hot chocolate when you are walking on the beach….” (James Green – Whitstable Times Thursday October 3)

• WBC says – It might be, but seeing as most people don’t drink hot chocolate in the middle of summer, anyone from Whitstable wanting to warm up with a hot drink after a winter walk along the beach is going to be very disappointed. The café will be open 9-6 in the summer season, and then only at weekends during Spring and Autumn. It won’t open at all in the winter. So is it an amenity for the town or an enterprise aimed at tourists?? Most people will just have to get their tea and coffee from The Neptune……but that’s what they do already anyway…

• WOFC says “ (The Red Spider Café )….will be a mix of brick and weather boarding” (James Green – Interviewed in Whitstable Times – Thursday September 26)

• WBC says – That isn’t what they’ve told the planning department. The design statement from Peter Jackson Architects clearly states that “The decking and structure all to be timber, with weather boarding finish to the walls.” That is to say…no bricks!!!

• WOFC says - that the huts were included in the application ‘..to show how huts would have been a feature of the beach scene before the Red Spider was demolished.’” (Whitstable Times – Thursday October 10)

• WBC says – The plans are unambiguous on this point as they show proposed new locations for new beach huts and the plans are annotated by hand with the words “Approx location temporary Beach Huts”. WBC research in the towns photo archive has (at most) shown no more than a handful of huts on West Beach, and certainly never as many as 2 dozen in the last quarter of a century.

• WOFC says – It was a condition of the sea defence work 12 years ago that the café was replaced (Whitstable Times October 10.) “..services were left in place on the understanding it (the Red Spider) would be rebuilt at a later date.” (James Green – Whitstable Times September 26)

• WBC says – We can find no evidence to support these statements and are making further inquiries about the history behind them.