Dear Mr Davies,
Application No: CA/10/02148/FUL
Proposal: Erection of Beach Cafe, West Beach Whistable

I write to strongly object to the above application on the following grounds:

Protected Public Open Space:Whitstable's beach exists as a rare undeveloped urban beach. Under Policy C24 of CDLP 2006 it is now designated under Protection of Existing Open Space, a designation not present at the time of the initial application in 2002, which this application seeks to replace. This is a material change of circumstances that should alone preclude any such development now being approved.
The undeveloped nature of this beach within the town (there are NO buildings on the seaward side of the sea wall) is a major asset to the attractiveness of Whitstable for both residents and visitors alike. To set any possible precedent by allowing a new development would be to breach this clear policy of protection, and would be to expose all other areas of beach to the same potential threat. It would also contradict the very essence of a public policy that evolved as a direct result of the controversy that surrounded the original application being approved despite such weighty public opposition.(172 letters of objection, 19 in support)

WAMP and CCC Policy to oppose any further beach development.The local councillors for Whitstable (Whitstable Area Member's Panel) who witnessed the outcry from local residents in opposition to the original application, as a consequence voted unanimously to oppose any future development on Whitstable's beaches.
“ We also note that it is the wish of the people of Whitstable that the raw character of the beach be maintained and that no further development be allowed on the seaward side of the sea wall. We are concerned that neither efforts to purchase the beach nor an Article 4 direction will safely do this unless we have in place a policy direction to the CCC to resist any and all such future development.

The Whitstable Area Member Panel therefore calls on the Executive of the Canterbury City Council to direct officers to take every possible step to ensure that no further development occurs now or in the future on the seaward side of the sea wall." (Minutes of WAMP meeting 27/01/2003).

This decision was approved by the Executive at the Guildhall on 6th March 2003 and is now the official policy of Canterbury City Council.

Scale of Development: The current application is substantially bigger than that originally, and controversially, approved . The current application is over 50% larger than the 2002 application. Since the latter which was designed to accommodate 26 seated eating and drinking customers (Source, Agent's statement for its alcohol licence), it can only be inferred that the current application seeks to accommodate substantially greater numbers with significant environmental and social impact at the site and its vicinity.

The original planning conditions applied to the 2002 application were clear in their directive to control hours or opening, nature of business and extent of development for reasons given as follows:

*Prohibition of any external alterations, including the erection of any marquees in connection with the cafe building. "REASON: To regulate the intensity of use permitted in the interests of the occupiers of local residential properties".

*Restriction of opening hours and seasonal opening periods imposed. REASON: "The protection of the amenities of nearby dwellings and the interests of nature conservation".

Clearly as it was thought inappropriate for any further increase in scale, change of activity or intensity of operation to be allowed in the former approval, it would be wholly unsuitable to approve a larger development with significantly longer opening hours at this time.

Environmental Impact :The current application seeks all year opening and summer hours of operation until 10pm which would be wholly detrimental to the quality of beach and environment for many homes in this residential area, especially in the summer when windows and doors are more usually open, contrary to the applicants statement. The potential of 40 people( based on 50% increase of original proposed custom,( 26 persons) adjusted by 50% increase in floor area) being served food (and potentially alcohol) on the beach in this residential area in the evening would be very much noisier than the current occasional evening strollers or picnickers at present. There are far more than 40 households in the direct vicinity whose quality of residential enjoyment would be severely compromised by such activities on this scale or for these opening hours.

The applicant stated that the original cafe would not be viable without an alcohol license yet this was never mentioned in the original statement of intent. It would be likely that a similar modus operandi may be used to increase commercial activity for the current proposal beyond that indicated in the application.

The statement implying that the cafe is "to provide a basic service for beach users and walkers" is misleading as walkers do not need facilities open until 10pm at night. This clearly will aim to create a beach restaurant with more than passing foot trade as naively implied.

Parking and Accessibility: Further to this, it is essential to point our the existing severe lack of parking in the vicinity, which is already acute for local residents, and that no provision for parking or deliveries has been included in the application. It is relevant to mention that at the original site visit by councillors for the 2002 application, the meeting was delayed as the majority could not find anywhere to park, and that was on a winter weekday morning!

The situation is significantly worse now with increased car pressure and particularly in summer months with increased visitor numbers. It would be hugely detrimental to local parking issues to condone a development that encouraged further domestic or commercial vehicles to concentrate in this area of Whitstable, away from the public car parks.

Unsuitable drainage and disposal of waste: It is inappropriate to approve any development, especially a commercial activity in a public space, that makes no provision for disposal of waste, of neither rubbish nor foul water sewerage. The developer has also declared no need to provide disposal of "trade effluent" yet this is a commercial restaurant. It is evident from another of the developer's restaurants (Royal native Oyster Stores) on the seafront that waste disposal is low priority with piles of stinking fish shells and skeletons discarded on the beach. They are smelly, unsightly and I suggest unhygenic. Such lack of environmental consideration is seemingly evident in this current application that lacks any consideration of waste or recycling issues.

The developer has also declared in the application that the site is not in the vicinity of a watercourse. This would seem inaccurate as the site is directly adjacent to the Swale Estuary, and any activity in the vicinity should have particularly rigorous waste and drainage provision as standard, not an afterthought.

Initial objections: I also raise my initail objections that applied to the original application and are equally valid against this current application.

1. The application is for development on a sea defence. It would be cause a significant inconvenience and expense, as well as presumably compensation costs, if a cafe building had to be removed (and reinstated?)for the ongoing works required to maintain and update the sea defences. There is insufficient space on the berm of the beach for construction traffic, as well as the liklihood that the beach may need to be raised again in the future.

2. The site is an area of SSSI, SPA and has RAMSAR designation because of the migratory birds in this part of the Swale estuary. It is not suitable for any development to be supported that encourages commercial activity and increased population pressures into this protected environment.

3.The site is in the Whitstable Town Conservation Area, and hence is designated as an “area(s) of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desireable to preserve or enhance”. This development will neither preserve or enhance the character of this site and hence should not be approved.In particular, its dominating presence will also be detramental to the historic Coastguard’s Lookout that is directly on the landward side of the proposed site.

4.The development will be unsightly and inconguous on the open beach. It will be taller than the existing tennis pavillion, and oppressive in it’s proximity to the footpath from which sea views will be obscured. This will be particularly unsightly if targeted by grafitti, as is common on wooden beach structures such as the adjacent tennis pavillion and beach huts further along the same beach.

5.It will attract antisocial behaviour in the same way as was found by regular vandalism attacks on the adjacent tennis pavillion. For many years this was weekly having to be repaired at taxpayer’s expense. The only solution was to expose the seafront seating area where youths had formerly congregated unseen. Hence antisocial activities could be more readily monitored by local residents and the problem was reduced. To create a similar sheltered refuge in an unlit stretch of the beach would be to reinvite trouble.

Equally it would be detramental to the amenity of local residents to have to illuminate this stretch just to protect the business interests of a private developer. The beach is not street lit elsewhere and should not have to lose its undeveloped nature by making it suburban and illuminated. Nor should the tax payer have to pay for security lighting or CCTV coverage if this were required.

Misleading Information: Mentioned in some of the objections above, I summarise below the significant inaccuracies that have appeared in the application form, and trust that these will be promptly and publically corrected on the Canterbury City Council planning page so that viewers are not given misleading information.

Question12 Flood Risk: Is your proposal within 20m of a watercourse? This should show “YES” as the site is within 20m of the Swale Estuary.

Question13 Biological and Geological Conservation:May the proposal effect designated sites, important habitats or other biodiversity features? The answer should be “Yes” as the site is on an SSSI, is a SPA and has European protection under RAMSAR designation.

Question14 Existing Use: Is the site currently vacant? The answer should be “YES”, the beach is wholly undeveloped.

Question 16 Trade Effluent: Does the proposal involve the need to dispose of trade effluent or waste? The answer should be “Yes”, this is a comercial development that will have waste output.

I also see that the postcode attributed to the application on the CCC website is CT5 1ET is incorrect. This is in fact for Daniels Court, a residential development behind the seawall approximately a quarter of a mile from the proposed site. If this postcode is entered by by any agency or researcher to find details of the site, it will bring up misleading information. This should be pointed out clearly, especially to Statutory Consultees who may not have first hand knowlege of the site and may base their responses on incorrect information. Daniels Court would not show up as SSSI nor as being on a flood defence or outside the seawall. Please can you confirm that the above inaccuracies will be amended and consultees renotified accordingly?

I would strongly advise that the consultation period is restarted once the accurate information is made available to the public and statutory consultees. It would also be appropriate to post planning notices at the proposed site itself as the single notification is on an adjacent road, not where people who use the beach would actually see it. This appears inadequte notification of the public. Please can you advise me what rectification will be taken?

This application should not be granted planning permission for the reasons stated above. and I trust that my objections are heard and recognised .

Yours sincerely,
Mrs P.M.Dixon, Wave Crest, Whitstable, Kent

Sirs,

May I please not my concerns regarding the above application to erect and open a commercial building on the beach adjascent/parallel to our home on Island Wall, Whitstable.

I have a couple of initial worries about such a development in this area.

Concerns regarding traffic are no stranger to anyone in Whitstable. However I feel that adding commercial vehicles to an area which is both small in scale [this end of Island Wall to Wavecrest] and which has no available parking spaces either private or public will add considerably to that problem. It must also be noted that we have no pavement within the above mentioned area. I note their is a suggestion that goods will be 'barrowed' to the building proposed. Whilst I find the idea in this day and age highly surprising - it is almost certain that either the delivery drivers will not comply with that suggestion, or that their will always be sufficient staff on duty in such a small enterprise, to allow them to leave to collect goods from the commericla vehicle. In a space with double yellow lines around, may I ask where such a vehicle will park whilst it is being unloaded onto the barrow? At the junction of Windy Corner stores/Island Wall? A pretty busy area now, imagine the difficulty whilst a 7cwt lorry is parked there unloading - with a barrow alongside? Most importantly though is the fact that because we have no pavement, our children are constantly on the road - to get to school, to reach the beach [on exactly the same route as access to proposed building], to reach friends homes, to play on their cycles, to reach our front garden which has no off-road access.

Whitstable is a place that is different. one of the differences is the undeveloped nature of most of it's sea-front. I believe that this encourages wildlife to our shores, and it seems that as we are to some degree an extension to the Swale estuary where the bird life is magnificent and undisturbed. The special nature of this area allows both humans and wildlife to share this open space and to co-exist fairly easily. Once we begin to extend development onto the beach, it will create more hot-spot crowds, mini 'conurbations' of people - the by-product of which is the disturbance of existing wildlife; and perhaps voiding the attraction of new forms.

Let us consider how our town is special. We have wonderful sister towns close by that offer more lively visitor formats, exotic Margate, jolly Broadstairs. Let's keep Whitstable different - please. I believe it is our collective duty to do so.

with kind regards
Dee Cartwright, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent

Dear Planning

I wish to register my objection to the planning application CA/10/02148/FUL - The Red Spider Cafe.

I object on the grounds that:

This will set a dangerous precedent for redevelopment of the West Beach area of Whitstable.
I understand that a cafe did exist previously previously but since then there have been a number of material changes which need to be taken into account including the fact that no buildings have been erected north of the sea wall for over 20 years
This area is now a 'protected open space'
This area is an SSSI due to the importance of the habitat it provides to water birds including the vegetated shingle beach on which the planned Cafe would be built. There now exist several acts of Parliament specifically requiring Councils to protect such areas from re development including the Conservation (natural Habitats) regulations 1994, The Natural and Rural Communities Act 2006 and most recently the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Additionally I am concerned that the planning application appears to include incorrect information:
1.The question addressing biodiversity and geological conservation was answered 'No' by the applicant which is incorrect, it is an SSSI and a protected open space.
2.Parking- the applicant stated parking was not necessary, where will staff, deliveries and customers park? All residents in the area know that parking is a major concern, all other premises in Whitstable have vehicular access, however this Cafe does not putting additional strain on parking in the local area.
3.No provision has been made for foul sewage and yet the Cafe will presumably require kitchen facilities and details a disabled WC on the plans, how will the waste from these be removed?
4.The applicant answered that the existing site is not vacant which it currently is.

Yours faithfully
Sally Newcombe, West beach, Whitstable, Kent

Dear Sir/madam,

I most strongly wish to object to any consideration being made to the above proposed development.

As a resident of the beach at West beach I would not want to have the concerns of extra traffic possibly using our roads in that area not to mention the parking which a proposal of this kind would inevitably create.

I would be most concerned that a development of this type could set a precedent for future developments whether commercial or otherwise. Whitstable is unique in so many ways as recent press reports can testify and the absence of commercial activity on the beach is paramount. Our streets simply could not cope not to mention the rubbish that would be generated and left on the beach i.e. take away containers and glasses. etc.

I would thoroughly recommend that this proposal be dismissed.

Yours faithfully,

P.A.Tobin, West beach, Whitstable