 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Letter to Whitstable Gazette, 24th January 2011 The Whitstable Beach Campaign belongs to anybody who loves and enjoys Whitstable. Members of the Campaign are wide ranging - we are local Whitstable residents as well as visitors. We agree with English Nature who are 'disappointed' in the site chosen. We wish to save this beach [an existing SSSI & RAMSAR site] for the existing wildlife. Our membership includes those think it is our duty to make provision in our town and our country for areas that are free from the congestion of daily modern life - commercial outlets are already widely available and don't need our protection. However if we are talking about keeping the beach to ourselves, shouldn't we look at the ownership of it; the Whitstable Oyster Fishery company which began life as an Act of parliament entitled to preserve the rights of oyster fishers? Where did it transform into this squire of the manor attitude? Into this company which owns the beach, wants to keep it to themselves and to develop property? The Whitstable Beach Campaign want the beach to be used by all who value and enjoy it. Many may with instinctive enthusiasm agree with your images of ice lollies on a sunny beach. But Mr Green; the past is another country. The tea hut was and is an indelible part of Whitstable's past, but we are no longer talking about a tea shop with two little old ladies serving tea from a shabby and picturesque hut. This building will be in tone, size and character, markedly different from those sepia tinted memories. Let me be more specific; Mr Green speaks of 'basically' renewing the old application for 'a small cafe on the beach'. This application is circa 30% larger than the original hut. He talks of expanding the opening hours, yet specifically, that expansion is to open between 9 am to 10 pm daily, and throughout the year. [The WBC has noted that their are a number of material differences which can be further examined if you look at our website www.whitstablebeachcampaign.org] There is an issue which another letter writer Mr Clark so astutely raised; simply put, his own feelings included 'a degree of suspicion as to the bone fide long-term intentions of the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company'. Our reasons for doubt are as follows: Thus in essence the image so carefully drawn, of a boy enjoying his ice-lolly entering a 'small cafe' fades away and is replaced by the reality of a beach bar, late nights and deeply wider commercial possibilities. In fairness to the WOFC, we must acknowledge and understand that they are [as listed in companies house] a '... property developer 'whose reasons must be profit making and commercial development rather than environmental protection. Indeed we would be unjust if we did not recognise the WOFC motive is economic and not altruistic, that is their business and their aim - fair enough. Let's finish on that elephant in the room that Mr Green so subtly points toward. NIMBYISM or, Not in My Back Yard? What is it and why are we fighting to stop something being developed in our back yard? Let me just say here that like many of our members, Like many of our members, I do not live on the sea-front. My back yard is your back yard. My beach is your beach. In other words - if those who live locally don't notice the assiduous drip, drip, drip of commercial development; if those who live in this town fail to protect its unique qualities, if we who live here can't fight for a town that we love; what does community mean? NIMBY's yes - self interested - NO! Our campaign is not full of beachside property owners happy to keep it for themselves - remember the WOFC owns it. Our campaign is full of Whitstable lovers who see, live in and adore this place. They love it because it has become something unique in our busy and over-developed corner of England . A haven of space, conservation and nature, bang on the edge of one of the most busy capital cities of the world. We don't have enough of those sea sides to throw them away. May I suggest that pride in our unique-ness and conservation of our protected open-spaces is how we keep Whitstable different Mr Green. Let's be clear-sighted here, if we want lots of development on the sea front, let's go to jolly Broadstairs; if we want fair rides on the beach - lively Margate. But - if you want something special, somewhere peaceful and different, if you want to keep the last south-east bastion of uncommercial beach, free of development - come to Whitstable. If we want to keep Whitstable different, we all need to be NIMBY's. Dee Cartwright Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company’s proposal to sell the beaches
from Keam’s Yard to the west Beach caravan site presents a golden
opportunity.
These beaches are the same that, two years ago, Mrs
Wilks, on behalf of the Whitstable Society, attempted to have registered
a Town/Village Green to provide protection against, amongst other things,
commercial development.
Canterbury City Council spent £20,000 of tax-payers
money to defeat the claim for registration because it believed its ability
to carry out essential sea defences would be impeded.
In a later statement to gain a measure of planning
control for the beaches, Mrs Wilks called upon the Council to apply for
an Article 4 directive. This request was turned down by the council on
the grounds that there was no evidence of a threat to the beaches.
The commercial value of the beaches would seem to be
low, but the value in amenity terms to residents and visitors is inestimable.
There is now a golden opportunity to be grasped by
Canterbury City Council.
The Council would not be obligated, as it is at present,
to seek the agreement of the private landowner. Furthermore, we, the people
would continue to enjoy an unencumbered beach in accountable democratic
control whereby we would have a meaningful voice in its future. As we
pay for the maintenance and cleansing of the beaches we should own them
Julia Seath, Island Wall, Whitstable Your recent story “Beach for Sale” demonstrates
that, despite all his public-spirited rhetoric, Mr Green cannot remain
the trustee of our valued community amenity.
Canterbury City Council opposed giving the beach village
green status. They even hired barristers to oppose Anne Wilks in her bid
to guarantee that the beach would remain unspoilt and open to all.
It was claimed that, since Mr Green pledged that public
access to the beach was assured, residents’ interests were protected.
But company promises cannot be guaranteed because commercial
priorities change.
Whitstable Oyster Company is, I believe, hectoring
the Council, and the threat to sell the beach is sour grapes because their
plans were not passed on the nod.
All of us have a financial stake both in the construction
and maintenance of the beach.
Urgent action is required to to resist this outrageous
act of commercial vandalism. Every council taxpayer will be burdened with
the cost of sorting out the inevitable chaos.
Just imagine the planning meltdown that would occur
if the beach was divided up into beach hut plots and sold off to all and
sundry.
A sea of silks from Islington could wash up on our
shores determined to litigate for the right to build on their freehold
beach plot.
Why can’t the council swallow its pride and admit
they were wrong to oppose the village green registration? Any future public
inquiry will be fully aware of how irrelevant the beach really is to the
Oyster Company’s purported fishing interests. The same beach, which
was claimed at the inquiry to be “essential” for the company,
is now up for sale.
We need a swift council statement indicating that they
support registering the beach as a village green to scupper any attempt
to cash in on a priceless public asset.
Laurence Barnes, Island Wall, Ok, here’s my slogan. Let’s buy the beach
before some greedy developers think it is a good place to put overpriced
beach huts, amusement arcades or extra holiday flats on.
The story of the red Spider Café development
plans of Barrie Green is getting more interesting day by day.
Last week the paper screamed “Beach for Sale”.
And, yes, Whitstable’s own Mr Big (one of two)
was fed up, understandably, with the shrieks of protest at his plans to
reinstate the aforementioned café and add some dinky beach huts
along the front of the tennis courts, beachside, worth around £15-18,000
each.
So he’s selling. Not the actual slice of gorgeous
windswept, pebbly bit of beach covered with fennel, stray plants from
people’s gardens and what looks like hogweed, but rights to the same
In fact, as a former councilor pointed out to me, the
public valuer would have to get involved and do the sums.
And to be fair: Barrie Green is the man who has put
Whitstable on the map with his Oyster Stores restaurants, his Continental
Hotel, (where we like having a Sunday coffee) and so on.
But may be this was a development too far, given that
the beach level has risen and the huts would kill the nice views as people
stroll along from the Neptune pub towards Seasalter.
So my plan is for us, the people of Whitstable, to
put up £30 each, or whatever we can afford, and buy it for everyone,
to remain undeveloped and fennel-infested in perpetuity.
How about it? Contact me on jane@hardy91.fsnet.co.uk
if you’re interested. Otherwise, it’s private enterprise or
Canterbury City Council – the same council that failed to protect
the beach by allowing it village green status. And then we can find something
else to argue about.
Jane Hardy, Island Wall, Whitstable I am writing to you about the article published in
a recent issue "Barrie Green hits back at his critics". You
quote him saying that "opponents don't want scruffy children playing
tennis in front of their windows". If Mr Green wants to complain
about an article in a national newspaper being littered with inaccuracies,
he should make particular efforts to get his own facts right.
I was one of the few people officially notified by
Canterbury City Council about the proposed Whitstable Oyster Company’s
development on West Beach because my home lies directly behind it. The
only things in between are the sea wall, and guess what - tennis courts!
Children regularly play on those courts and Mr Green is quite unfair in
calling them scruffy. In general they are both well-dressed and well-behaved.
Indeed local tennis coach, Steve Long, ran a youth training programme
on these courts this year, that was very popular with local children.
This initiative was widely supported by the local residents. With the
support and financial assistance of the council, these tennis courts could
be a valuable resource for Whitstable children.
I was further amused by Mr Green's reference to "100%
nimbyism" in your newspaper. Those who have raised objections to
the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company's proposed "caff 'n' huts"
development include the Kent County Council Public Right of Way Officer,
the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Canterbury City
Council Engineering Department and Canterbury & District Access Group,
an organisation dedicated to access issues for the local disabled. Would
Mr Green describe these organisations as nimbys? Those most vociferous
in support of this totally inappropriate development seem to be largely
WOFC underlings and apparatchiks. Strange that.
If Mr Green would like to avoid accusations of nimbyism
himself, he should consider re-siting his B&Q-on-Sea style café/takeaway
and "a couple of dozen beach huts" in front of the Oyster Fishery
Restaurant, The Hotel Continental or maybe his troubled Vines development?
Local people should be aware of the WOFC's not-so-hidden
agenda: Today West Beach, tomorrow the world! Unless objections are made
to this Planning Application, a precedent will be established for beach
development. Goodbye clean and unspoilt beaches. Goodbye protected wildlife.
Goodbye environment. Goodbye footpath views of the sunset & Swale
Estuary. Goodbye Whitstable's unique character. Hello Greenland.
Paul McNally, Island Wall Whitstable
I was interested to read Barry Green’s remarks concerning the proposed
beach huts on Whitstable’s West Beach. I quote: "Even on an
August weekend only about three beach huts in 20 are used."
In that case why are they wanting to build them, blocking
the view from the path and changing the character of this quiet beach?
Who will they benefit?
Possibly only occasional London visitors, and of course
the Oyster Company itself. With a price
tag of several thousand pounds each, they are certainly not for local
people.
If Barry is so afraid of threats to his family why
does he persist in going against the wishes of many people who live here?
As for the Red Spider café, support for this
is purely one of nostalgia. Do people really expect the cups of tea and
homemade cakes? The reality is likely to be more the cloying stench of
frying onions that pervades Canterbury High St most days.
Society has changed dramatically and cosy beach cafes
are a thing of the past.
The nearby shelter is already a regular target for
vandals and access to the beach is impossible for emergency vehicles.
Narissa Knights, Wave Crest, Whitstable I must protest that Whitstable’s beautiful beach
will be spoiled for commercial gain.
I am aware that there were once huts on the beach. But they will be much
higher now, due to the sea defences carried out some years ago at no cost
to the Whitstable Oyster Company. It is my understanding that the charter granted in 1793 to the Oyster
Company was not for the operation of a building enterprise. Whitstable has kept its beauty by keeping commercialism off the beach,
a café will not enhance the area in any respect. Views will be ruined if these huts are allowed to be erected. I urge
you to put a stop to it now. Let
this remain a natural beauty spot – there are not many left. Barrie Fromings, Monkton Road, Welling The plan to open the Red Spider café and place huts on the beach
fills me with great disappointment.
My wife and I and our three young children and guests use this stretch
regularly because it is
unspoilt and has terrific views out to sea and over to Sheppey. It is Mr Green who is in fact the NIMBY of Whitstable.
The beach in front of the Royal Oyster Stores is a disgrace. Mr Green
has gradually made the area around the old horsebridge uninviting. Why? So that diners in his expensive restaurant have uninterrupted views
of the sea, unencumbered with the sight of families enjoying themselves,
and to discourage drinkers from Pearson’s taking a pint onto ‘his’
beach. Michael Kentish, Harwich St, Whitstable Nick Baldry, of Peter Jackson Architects, claims in
your report that the Red Spider café application is "nothing
to do with beach huts".
However, a row of 13 huts is shown on the plan. So
what we evidently have to do is put the most benign interpretation on
the following part of the application: "Our drawing also indicates
the positions of some of the original beach huts in this area. There is
a demand for these also to be replaced but, if they were, they would remain
as temporary structures not requiring planning consent. They would be
on ‘skids’ to be easily removable, and in positions to be agreed
by goodwill. A configuration is indicated but they do not form part of
the proposal".
No doubt local youths will be intrigued by the possibilities
presented by huts on "skids". The council will be surprised,
in the light of latest planning law, that such constructions do not require
planning permission.
Meanwhile, Mrs E.M. Pointer obviously deserves a big
discount at the café from her employers at the Whitstable Oyster
Fishery Company.
She wrote to you in favour of their proposal, and has
previously done them a good turn by giving evidence against the idea of
designating the beach as a village green.
There is still time to write to the planning department
of the Canterbury council on this issue, and we would urge your readers
to do so straight away.
The Whitstable Beach Campaign Why would Barrie Green of Whitstable Oyster Fisheries
Company confirm to the Guardian that the West Beach plans included beach
huts if they weren’t part of the plans?
The line in the Guardian article is unambiguous. It
reads "He’s (Barrie Green) ‘shocked’ at the hostility
to his latest plans, which he describes as "a café and a couple
of dozen beach huts".
Why would he describe his own plans as including "a
couple of dozen beach huts.." (incidentally nearly double the number
he has included on the planning proposal).. if they weren’t part
of the plans??
Simon Pope, Marine Terrace, Whitstable It is a wonderful place that has not become commercialized
and ‘tacky’, and is a pleasant place to escape to, whether it
be to cool off in the sea in summer, have a brisk winter walk or watch
the spectacular sunsets.
Whitstable will be completely ruined if beach huts
are erected at the top of the beach, maybe they were there years ago but
they would have been lower down, the beach has been built up a great deal
since those days.
The whole view from the walkway would be obscured and
the sunsets obliterated from view. It will be like walking through a tunnel.
The fact that permission maybe given for a café
is ridiculous. If people need to eat and drink there are places already
in existence to meet their needs.
The Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company was granted the
Royal Charter for the proliferation of oysters and not for the development
of property. They should not be allowed to ruin the beach with their money
making ideas.
The beach should retain its natural beauty and I hope
my grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to visit Whitstable
and have the pleasure we have been able to enjoy, that is a place that
has not been spoilt.
Virginia Howell, Wilmington As someone who grew up in the town, I should comment
that when the Red Spider Café was open there were not nearly as
many cafes and places to eat in the town as the enormous choice there
are now. In addition there were far more areas of open space. This is not just about a single café but the
commercialization of West beach by Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company which
already owns three restaurants and a snack bar in the town. This proposal would establish a dangerous precedent
in this respect, the rot needs to stop now before Whitstable's unique
character is destroyed. Rather than exploitation, perhaps the time has come
for the oyster fishery company to be philanthropic and to donate the beach
to the people of Whitstable, via the council, to be preserved undeveloped
for now and in the future. I would finally add that surely the people of Whitstable
and visitors have already acquired full rights of way over the beach which
would preclude any development anyway, so what's going on? Eileen Eve and Terry Goddin, Island Wall, Whitstable
In response to Mr Green's letter in your newspaper last week.
i] The first being that the application is not for a small defined area of ground upon which to build. The title deed itself - application number K781262 covers the entire Whitstable Oyster Fishery Companys beach holding : and it is this which consequently sets by default a precedent for development on that entire plot. The title deed runs from Seasalter to Tankerton [circa 2 kilometres]. That opens vast possibilities for precedent development.
ii] We already know that the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company included plans to build rows of new beach huts, enclosing the beach side footpath and it's view. Will that happen again? Will you re-apply for another liquor licence?
Press Officer
the Whitstable Beach Campaign
The following letters were published in the Whitstable Times or the Whitstable
Gazette in relation to the original 2002 application and subsequent
related issues.
Whitstable Times and Whitstable Gazette
Whitstable Gazette, 21.11.02 Whitstable Times 28.11.02
Whitstable Times 28.11.02
Published 7.11.02
Published 24.10.02
Published 24.10.02
Published 24.10.02 
Published 17.10.02
Published 17.10.02
I can remember visiting Whitstable as a child with my parents and grandparents
and have since visited regularly with my own four children.
Published 17.10.02
Published 17.10.02