Author: admin

Dog Control Orders: the WS has submitted this request

‘We request that the dog control order is extended to the end of Tankerton Promenade where the promenade exits through the sea wall near the Continental Hotel; so dogs in the season are banned from the beach there and must be on a lead on the promenade.

This section is as busy if not more so that the middle section currently covered by the dog control order with large numbers of people(often picnicking), cyclists and especially children playing who are most vulnerable to being frightened by dogs’ beach activity and affected by their waste products: the deposit of which on the shingle is inevitable from some off-lead dogs . The western section also has the approaches to The Street where dogs are antithetical to the use of this famous attraction.

The dog control area ends where it currently does at the western end for no logical reason other than , we are told by officials, that this was the point at which the area ends for which the Council was seeking a beach award.

Dog walkers go from the road highway at the Continental to a non-control dog area and then into a control area with similar requirements to the road highway. Confusing.

West of the Continental, the beach becomes utilitarian with water craft landing and launching and no promenade. This is an area where dogs can be given more freedom for their swims and frolics on the beach itself without disturbing people for that beach is hardly used for the rest and recreation that typifies Tankerton Slopes promenade and beach. Dog owners can also take their dogs to the eastern end of Tankerton Slope’s promenade. Given the length of typical dog walk, a walk will likely take in one or both of such non-dog control areas.

Foreshore and CCC highways departments advise that they support extending the dog control area as proposed. In the case of highways, they consider dogs off leads are not consistent with a pedestrians/cyclist track (ie the promenade) especially when busy. Indeed the creation of an official 24/7 shared track increases the strength of argument for extension of the dog control order over the short western part not currently covered.’

At this weeks meeting on Wednesday 19th June 2013 the topic is the Draft Local Plan.

In the light of events at recent meetings in Canterbury relating to the Plan, we draw to the attention of all members and other attendees of our meeting the following code of conduct.

Conduct of Meetings Regarding Interests

Meetings or parts of meetings on any planning matters are held to uphold the interests of Whitstable, whether development affects and/or can be seen by large or a small numbers of people (the objective). Meetings to decide policy must not be dominated by speeches from one lobbying group to the exclusion of contrary or middle-ground viewpoints; especially. On pecuniary matters, the WS is not authorised to hold court for the interests of property owners re matters which simply affect the value of that property or for landowners or developers unless they are invited to speak to aid the overall objective (eg by explaining advantage for Whitstable).

Pecuniary Interests.

1. When a member or other person asks a question of a guest, makes a comment or otherwise contributes in discussion during a WS meeting on any matter, they will reveal any pecuniary interest. It is entirely in the discretion of the officer chairing that meeting or part of the meeting whether or not that person will be heard or continue to be heard.
2. If members are advised in advance that a meeting will be covering a topic or area of interest, a member should seek advance permission to speak about anything in which they hold a pecuniary interest.

Other Interests.

If it becomes clear that a meeting is packed by people from one lobby group, the chair of the meeting reserves the right to halt contributions from people from one point of view so as to ensure fairness to other speakers wishing to make their views clear; just as effort is made to ensure less forward contributors get the chance to air their views.

We expect members to advise if they are personally affected by an issue (eg a development may block a view from a garden, a non-planning argument) as this may bias their views. It should be noted however that the WS does assist where development affects the interests of one or more people if there is unfair/unbalanced planning process/practice involved (eg a commercial unit threatens to take away light from a garden). This is consistent with our objectives and role as Official Planning Consultee for Whitstable.

A note on the determination of beach hut prices on sites rented from the Council

It has been said that the price of beach huts is just a market outcome and nothing to do with the Council. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The cost of a new beach hut is no more than £2000: even for the fanciest. When someone buys a beach hut for £10,000, they are not buying just the hut in their perception. They are buying primarily what they think is the right to rent the site from the Council in perpetuity (and indeed to pass on that right to their heirs) and the right to sell-on this ‘right’ in perpetuity : as that is the way things are run at present.

The excess of the market price of about £8000 over the cost of building a hut is caused exclusively by the practice of permitting existing annual license holders to have the Foreshore Office transfer the annual licence to anyone who the present lessee chooses automatically (ie to the person prepared to pay £10,000). The license clearly states that any transfer is subject to the approval of the Council and therefore the Department of Community Services has every legal right to restrict transfers in any way it chooses.

It is therefore the Council that is causing the high price of huts on Council owned land for the simple reason that if transfers were banned, there would be no market for the ‘right’ to rent in perpetuity. In such a case, all surrendered leases would be allocated to people in a queue or through some other mechanism determined by Councillors and owners of the wooden huts could sell the structures to the new license holders. The Council also has an indirect effect on the value of huts on private land (such as West Beach) according to the level of rent charged for council sites.

The practice of permitting lessees to request officers to transfer the annually renewable licences to anyone automatically side steps any queuing system the Council may have in place. As the price has rocketed, the effect of present policy is to effectively steer by auction council hut sites to people from outside the District, as most local people cannot afford such high prices.

A market could still operate, but probably at much lower prices, if transfers were limited to new license holders from the District or, if a long lease system (eg 10 years) were adopted, the sale and purchase on the residual period on such leases.

A revamp of the whole system is a political decision, but whatever is done must be considered in the realisation that it is Council policy, in today’s market, that has a large influence on the price at which huts on Council sites are sold or indeed if there is market for anything other than the hut itself.