hbamp 2011-06-14 agenda pack

8/6/2019 HBAMP 2011-06-14 Agenda Pack

1/45

Agenda

Herne Bay Area Member Panel

Tuesday

14 June 2011at 6.30 pm

Salvation Army Hall33 Richmond Street

Herne Bay

Document Pack


2/45

Membership of the Herne Bay Area Member Panel

Councillors

Councillor BissettCouncillor BrightCouncillor Byford

Councillor A CookCouncillor EdwardsCouncillor FlahertyCouncillor Hirst -KCC and CCCCouncillor HowesCouncillor Law - KCCCouncillor LeeCouncillor ReubyCouncillor SonnexCouncillor A TaylorCouncillor Vickery-Jones

Champion of the Panel: Velia Coffey, 862 149Panel Administrator: Lyn McDaid, 862 006

A copy of the Terms of Reference and Notes for this Area Member Panel are attached forinformation.

Quorum: The quorum shall be a minimum of three Members from either council.

NOTES

1 Members of the public may at meetings of the Herne Bay Area Member Panel speakfor no more than three minutes upon any item which appears on the agenda for themeeting provided that notice has been given to Democratic Services (telephone01227 862 006 or e-mail [email protected]) not later than 12.30pmon the working day before the meeting.

2 Neither the Council nor its Executive has authorised the recording of their meetingsor those of any committee, sub-committee, working group or similar body bymembers of the public or the media by any mechanical or electronic device or similarmeans. Recordings will not be permitted at any such meetings to which the pressand public are admitted unless the council decides otherwise.

3 The information contained within this agenda is available in otherformats, including Braille, large print, audio cassettes and otherlanguages.

4 If you have any queries regarding items on this agenda, please contact Lyn McDaidon 01227 862 006 or email [email protected]


3/45

A G E N D A

Page (s)

1 INTRODUCTIONS

2 OPERATION OF THE PANEL

Velia Coffey, a Strategic Director of the City Council and Champion ofthe Panel, to advise.

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

4 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN FOR THE YEAR 2011/12

TO ELECT a City Councillor as Chairman for the year 2011/12.

5 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR THE YEAR 2011/12

The Senior Community Engagement Manager (KCC) will reportverbally any decision of the County Council regarding its appointmentof the Vice-Chairman of the Panel for the year 2011/12.

6 DISCLOSURES BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

Members and officers are invited to declare any interests and whetherthe nature of them is prejudicial or personal.

7 ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC AND ORGANISATIONS IN THEPANEL'S AREA

Under the terms of reference of the Panel there are various issues thatthe Panel will need to consider. For example, the Panel must give atleast annual consideration as to how it is engaging with both the publicand organisations in its area to reflect the view of its communities andcommunicate back to those communities information, which will be of

interest.

The Panel must also consider how it will allow members of the public tospeak at its meetings.

Previously the Panel has allowed the public to speak on any items onthe agenda for a period not exceeding three minutes subject to priornotice being given to the Chief Executive (CCC Democratic Services)by 12.30 on the working day before the meeting. It has also recentlyagreed there will be a 20 minute public question and answer session atthe beginning of each meeting.

Is the Panel happy to continue to allow public participation on thebasis of the above for the year 2011/12?


4/45

8 PUBLIC QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

A written question has been received from Alan Porter on a villagegreen application for The Downs. His question and the officersresponse is attached to the agenda.

10 - 13

9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Provided that notification has been given to the Chief Executive by12.30pm on Monday 13 June 2011, members of the public may speakon any item on the agenda for a maximum of three minutes.

Jason Onion has given notice that he wishes to speak on the itemrelated to the Dr Who proposals.

The Chairman to report upon any other notifications received.

10 MINUTES - 15 MARCH 2011

To confirm as a true record.

14 - 23

11 ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE LAST MEETING NOT DEALT WITHBY SEPARATE REPORTS

Min No 80 No fishing signs at the pond, Memorial Park, HerneBay

Legal and other officers have reviewed this matter and advise thatfishing is prohibited by the byelaw. However a review of byelaws willcome forward during the new administrative year.

TO NOTE

12 FORTHCOMING DECISION LIST - 1 JUNE 2011 TO 30 SEPTEMBER2011

TO REVIEW the list and consider if the Panel should be consulted onany of the decision topics.

24 - 27

13 KENT COUNTY COUNCIL'S FORWARD PLAN

Kent County Council is currently undergoing a period of consultation onthe impact of proposed changes to Kent County Council's charges foradult social care services (this does not include residential care). Allcurrent recipients of social care services in Kent have been written towith a questionnaire asking for their opinions. The closing date for the

consultation is 31 July 2011. If there are any queries about theconsultation the Senior Community Engagement Manager (KCC) will


5/45

be pleased to report them to the appropriate Officers at the CountyCouncil.

A copy of the consultation document has been sent to members of thePanel with this agenda.

TO NOTE

14 THE GREEN SHELTER

Malcolm Burgess, the City Councils Head of Property and EngineeringServices, will attend for this item.

28 - 33

15 NEW BEACH HUT DEVELOPMENT SITES - CONSULTATION ONOPTIONS

Richard Griffiths, the City Councils Outdoor Leisure Manager, willattend for this item.

34 - 42

16 PROPOSAL RELATED TO DR WHO ITEMS

TO DISCUSS, at the request of Councillor A Cook, the attachedproposal.

43

17 PROGRESS REPORT OF THE COASTAL TOWNS MANAGER

Chris West, the City Councils Coastal Towns Manager, will attend forthis item.

44 - 45

18 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Tuesday 19 July 2011 at 6.30pm in the Salvation Army Hall, 33Richmond Street, Herne Bay.

19 ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS TO BE DEALT WITH IN PUBLIC

20 ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS WHICH FALLS UNDER THEEXEMPT PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972OR THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 OR BOTH


Trial Terms of Reference and Member arrangements for

the Area Member Panels

The proposal is to create five Area Member Panels for the Canterbury district as a trial for aperiod of one year and is voluntary on the part of each council. The arrangements will be


6/45

reviewed at the end of the pilot period. These arrangements and terms of reference will beoperative during the trial period.

The five Area Member Panel are:

CanterburyHerne Bay

WhitstableRural NorthRural South

Each Area Member Panel (AMP) will be established by Kent County Council (KCC) andCanterbury City Council (CCC).

Each Party shall be responsible for their own costs incurred in the operation of the AreaMember Panels.

The Area Member Panels shall be non statutory forums.

Purpose

To enable locally elected representatives, as leaders of their communities to engagewith and respond to local communities needs.

To create opportunities for residents to gain a greater voice and influence over localservices.

Specifically the AMPs will:

Develop a shared understanding of local issues and priorities for improving thequality of life of local people.

Refer issues of local concern to the relevant cabinet/executive monitor action andnegotiate the resolution of issues.

Maintain and enhance links with local communities.

Enhance local democracy and community cohesion by identifying and providingopportunities for meaningful community consultation.

Support the implementation of local plans and strategies.

Values and Quality Expectations

The AMPs will provide an opportunity for genuine dialogue and open discussion,enabling and encouraging an informal, participatory approach to communityengagement.

Feedback on outcomes and actions resulting from AMP meetings should bepromoted and communicated to participants.

The AMPs will deliver tangible outcomes and benefits for residents and for thecommunity.

Each council represented will not withhold from discussion matters of service deliveryor local concern that are of genuine public interest.

Members of the AMPs will make recommendations to their appropriateCabinet/Executive on behalf of the community.

Roles and responsibilities


7/45

Members and Officers will work together in a partnership that recognises parity ofesteem between the two councils to seek the very best for the communities andresidents of Canterbury within the Terms of Reference and vision of the AMPs.

To encourage Parish and voluntary/community sector participation where applicable.

To not bring party politics or rivalry between elected Members or tiers of localgovernment into the public meeting.

Membership

The Area Member Panels will comprise KCC local members for divisions in the panels areaand members appointed by the CCC. The KCC local members will be entitled tomembership of the Area Member Panels as follows:

Panel CAMP HBAMP WAMP RAMP(North)

RAMP(South)

CanterburyCity NE

Herne &Sturry

Whitstable Herne &Sturry

CanterburySE

Canterbury

City SW

Herne Bay Whitstable Canterbury

SE

Canterbury

West

KCCDivisionmember

CanterburySE

Herne Bay CanterburyWest

Chair

The Chairman and Vice Chairman of each AMP shall be from differing councils and shallrotate each year as follows:

Year Chairman Vice Chairman

1 CCC representative KCC representative

2 KCC representative CCC representative

3 Repeat cycle from year 1 etc

Voting

All KCC and CCC Members will have equal voting rights on the Area Member Panel thatcovers the area in which they are elected.

If a Member has a place on a Panel as both a KCC and CCC representative they will beentitled to two votes.

Quorum

The quorum shall be a minimum of three Members from either council.

Meetings

Each AMP will generally meet six times a year on dates and at times and venues tobe specified by the city council in accordance with its normal arrangements inconsultation with KCC.

There may also be private meetings for the purposes of agenda planning and briefingof the AMP members.

Support

The two councils will commit officer resource as necessary to ensure the AMPs are runsuccessfully.


8/45

Terms of Reference

1. Each AMP will formulate its owns ways of working consistent with the constitution ofthe council and with these general terms of reference.

2. Each AMP must give at least annual consideration as to how it is engaging with both

the public and organisations in its area to enable it to reflect the view of itscommunities and communication back to those communities information which willbe of interest. This consideration will include (but will not be limited to) the time andplace of meetings and the nature of items appearing on the agenda.

3. Each AMP is to act as a consultative forum. KCCs Cabinet and the CCCs Executivewill use AMPs on proposed decisions which particularly affect an AMP area and bythe AMP itself on its own proposals on local issues.

4. Where an Area Member Panel perceives it has observations on a KCC or CCC wideor functional matter then it may comment to the appropriate decision making personor body or service head.

5. AMPs should seek to promote partnership working and to identify potentialpartnerships both with their local area and across the district which might enhancethe delivery of services and recommend these to CCCs Executive or KCCs Cabinet.

6. AMPs will be supported by a lead officer and Democratic Services Officer from theCCC, a Community Liaison Manager from KCC. The role of these officers is to assistthe Chair and Vice Chair in agenda formulation, obtain information and explain it tomembers and to act as the AMPs voice within the officer corps of the respectivecouncils.

Note: In deciding on their local working methods AMPs should as soon as possible afteradopting these terms of reference consider their methods or working. They should seek outand consult stakeholders within the local area and encourage the widest possible localdebate. AMPs should gain ideas on how the public and local organisations can contribute toCounty and City Council processes.

Further Notes:

Panels are consultative and (because they are non-proportional) they are non-decision making. Officers have no authority to take action on the basis of the panelrecommendations.

Recommendations of panels will be referred by the Democratic Services Officer or

Community Liaison Manager to the appropriate body to accompany the relevantreport.

The accuracy of minute of panels will be a matter for each panel.

Items are placed on the agenda by Members or officers are channelled through theChair, Vice-Chair and Lead Officer for the AMP.

Reports to Panels should, where possible, follow the format in the template forreports.

Panels should not discuss individual planning applications.

Except as otherwise provided, rules of procedure shall be those of the City Council.

Each AMP must consider how it will allow members of the public to speak at itsmeetings and resolve upon rules it wishes to adopt.- If a member of the public wishes to speak to an item which is to be dealt with after

the public has been excluded, he or she may only speak prior to the press andpublic being excluded.


9/45

- The AMP may refuse to allow a member of the public to speak or to continue tospeak if it appears that the speech is defamatory, abusive, inflammatory or forother good reason.

- Membership of the AMPs shall be limited to KCC and City Councillors for thedesignated area.

- The panel may invite specific individuals to attend and address the panel on aspecific item raised on the agenda, such invitations to be issued by the

Democratic Services Officer.- Members of the public shall be excluded by vote of the panels during discussion

on confidential items.- That Area Member Panel agendas be made available to the public and press on

the same basis as for city council agendas.


10/45


Guidance for Question and Answer Session for the Public at each meeting

A maximum period of 20 minutes to be set aside at the beginning of each meeting of the

panel to allow questions from the public and, where appropriate, responses by the panel.

The 20 minute period is in line with the Council meeting protocol.

Whilst it is not essential for advance notice to be given of a question it would be helpful if it

was submitted in advance of the meeting to the Democratic Services Officer (Canterbury

City Council).

Lyn McDaid 01227 862006

[email protected]

Questions submitted in advance of the meeting

1. Written questions may be submitted in advance, these should be received by theDemocratic Services Officer 3 clear working days before the meeting as this will

allow the relevant officer to prepare a response for the panel meeting.

2. Questions will be taken and answered in the order they are received.

3. Questions must include the name of the person wishing to ask the question. If a

written response is considered to be appropriate an address must be supplied to the

Democratic Services Officer.

4. Any anonymous questions will be rejected.

5. At the start of each meeting the Chairman will indicate whether there have been any

questions submitted in advance.

6. The Chairman will respond to questions or if appropriate offer the question to the

Panel Members or any officers present for a response.

Questions submitted at the meeting

1. The Chairman will ask members of the public present at the meeting if they wish toask any questions.

2. Questions will be taken and answered in the order they are received.

3. The name of the person and area of residence must be supplied.

4. The Chairman will respond to questions or if appropriate offer the question to the

Panel Members or any officers present for a response.

5. If a written response is considered to be appropriate then the member of the publicmust provide the Democratic Services Officer with their address.

Agenda Item 8 Page 10


11/45

General criteria

1. Each question will be received by the Chairman and the Panel Members and any

officer present will be offered the opportunity to respond.

2. The Panel will reserve the right to refer any question to the relevantdepartment/officer for a written reply. A copy of any written response will be made

available at the following meeting of the Panel.

3. Each person asking a question is requested to do so as succinctly as possible.

4. The question and answer session is not intended as a mechanism for introducing a

debate on any issues arising.

5. Where the 20 minute period for the question and answer session has expired any

further questions will have to be made at the next meeting or be put in writing to bereferred to the relevant officer for a response.

6. If a question relates to Planning, Licensing or other quasi-judicial issues then

Members who may be involved in the decision making process are advised not to

comment. Members attention is drawn to advice from the Standards Board for

England in respect of predisposition, predetermination or bias -

http://www.standardsforengland.gov.uk/Guidance/TheCodeofConduct/Guidance/Topi

cguides/PredispositionPredeterminationorBias/

7. The Chairman will have an absolute discretion to reject any questions which he

considers might be unsuitable.

8. Each question and any response given at the meeting will be recorded in the

minutes.

9. The Councils public participation scheme also allows members of the public to speak

separately, each for a maximum period of 3 minutes, on any items on the agenda for

the meeting provided that prior notice has been given to the Democratic Services

Officer before 12 noon on the working day before the meeting.

Possible amendments to the guidance

The panel will reserve the right to amend the guidance for the question and answer session

as and when appropriate without notice.

Page 11


12/45

Question for the HBAMP Meeting 14 June 2011

Re: Village Green Application

From: Alan Porter.

I am a resident who has supported the Village Green application since it was firstformulated.

I wish to make it clear that although I am also Secretary of the Friends of the Downs,I am asking this question personally and not in that capacity.

1,181 people (95% of them Herne Bay residents) completed witness statements

supporting the application to register the Downs as a Village Green Ten timesmore than commented on the Central Development Area proposals.

The Councils engineers have already advised against any development of theDowns so a Village Green is no disadvantage to the Council.

It is entirely within the gift of the Council to register the Downs as a Village Greenshould it decide to do so. There is no legal or maintenance barrier to the Downsbeing a Village Green. As proof of this, Canterbury already has Village Greens atDuncan Down and some Whitstable beaches, which have undergone substantialmaintenance. Despite this, officers have spent public money on three occasionsseeking external legal advice to fight the Village Green application.

Kent County Council is recommending that the Village Green application be decidedat a Public Inquiry. This could last several days. If officers continue to fight theapplication, our Council will run up more lawyers' bills, fighting the will of the localpeople.

Before even more public money is wasted, is not it time for Herne Bays electedMembers to support what Herne Bay people want, and say "Yes" to making theDowns a village Green?

Page 12


13/45

Officers comments on Alan Porters question to HBAMP

The Executive noted the Council objection to the Village Green application at its meeting onAugust 12 2010.

It is no trivial matter to have a piece of land registered as village green, as the registrationmay affect the Councils management of its land. This is particularly important when thecoastal slopes are within an active landslip area.

The Council is objecting to the application in part on the grounds that much of the Downscame into the Councils ownership under the Public Health Act 1875. The Acts provisionsmean that the land is held in an implied statutory trust for the benefit of the public. Thisplaces a bar on a village green application because a village green applicant must provethat public use of the land in question is as of right. The Council holds the land in trust forthe public to use by right.

In short, village green status would result in the Council losing its power to manage the land

to some extent and in any event much of the land is already held on trust for the inhabitants

of its district.

The Council has been pleased to apply to declare the whole of the Downs a QueenElizabeth II field which means that all the land will be held by the Council in trust for itsinhabitants, and give the land protection. This would allow the Council to continue with itsongoing enhancement of the Downs. However it will continue to resist village green status.

Page 13


14/45

CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL

HERNE BAY AREA MEMBER PANEL

Minutes of a meeting held on Tuesday, 15th March, 2011at 6.30 pm in the Salvation Army Hall, 33 Richmond Street, Herne Bay

Present: Mr Hirst (Chairman)Councillor BissettCouncillor BrightCouncillor DavisCouncillor M FlahertyCouncillor R FlahertyCouncillor HandoCouncillor LeeCouncillor Matthews

Councillor ReubyCouncillor SonnexCouncillor A TaylorCouncillor Vickery-Jones

Officers: Velia Coffey - Strategic Director

Graham Finch - Senior Democratic Services Officer(Executive & Council)

Jo Pannell - Community Engagement Manager (KCC)

Chris West - Coastal Towns Manager

*Malcolm Burgess-

Head of Property and Engineering Services

(*present for part of the meeting)

68 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

An apology for absence was received from County Councillor Law and for latenessfrom Councillor Davis.

69 DISCLOSURES BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

Councillors Bissett, Sonnex and Vickery-Jones each declared a personal interest inthe item regarding the parish councils capital grant scheme because of their positionas Ward Members in respect of the application by Herne and Broomfield ParishCouncil.

These declarations are recorded in the relevant Minute below.

70 PUBLIC QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

(a) Mr D Eburne had submitted questions in advance of the meeting about thepowers of the Parish Councils and their precepts and the Officers responses

were set out in the Agenda.



15/45


16/45

So my question is twofold:

1) how much consultation with the public and with its staff did the Royal Mailundertake before committing itself to this new method? And

2) in how many offices was the delivery method trialled before all this moneywas spent on it?"

Presentation

The Chairman then welcomed to the meeting the following representatives of RoyalMail who gave a presentation to the Panel about the new postal delivery system forHerne Bay and they responded to the above questions as indicated below:-

Mr Heulyn Davis, Senior External Relations ManagerMr Martin Woods, Delivery Lead Kent ProjectMr Andrew Mills, Head of Deliveries for Kent

They mentioned the following points during their presentation:-

1. Royal Mail recognised that it is a key public service and it had to act in acommercial manner.

2. They explained the rationale for the introduction of the new postal deliverysystem.

3. Maintaining the status quo was not sustainable.4. The latest Accounts indicated an operating loss of 55million.5. Royal Mail was still obliged to deliver mail across the country.6. Royal Mail was, therefore, driving forward a modernisation programme to put

its business on a sustainable footing. The current service was not fit for

purpose.7. 11 pilot schemes had been implemented elsewhere in the country.8. Royal Mail faced many challenges which included increased competition as a

result of the postal market being opened up.9. The volume of mail had reduced from 84 million items of post each day 5

years ago to a current figure of 68 million.10. The volume of post was expected to decrease by 40% over the next 5 years.11. More goods were being ordered on line.12. Delivery practices were being changed to accommodate the requirements.13. There had been a substantial increase in the volume of packages.14. There were issues arising regarding the workload and the weight of the

packages.

15. They apologised for the problems arising from the revisions before Christmasto the postal deliveries for Herne Bay.

16. They indicated that the adverse weather conditions had affected the postaldeliveries.

17. Royal Mail wished to ensure that a local facility was available for thecollection of any undelivered mail. The options available were explained tothe Panel Members.

18. There were lessons to be learned from the introduction of the new postaldelivery system.

19. Royal Mail wished to move forward and address the issues arising.

Members responded and the points included the following:-

Page 16


17/45

1. The new postal delivery system was failing businesses. For example, therewere delays in the delivery of cheques and other items.

2. There were concerns about various aspects of the current Business Model.3. There had been a decline in the quality of the postal service.4. It was questioned whether it was necessary to increase postal charges each

year when there were reduced postal volumes.5. It was inevitable that price increases would result in a reduction in the volume

of mail.6. It was questioned whether it was the right time to introduce the new postal

delivery system before Christmas.7. Issues regarding demand and supply for services should be taken into

account.8. It had taken 15 days to receive an item of post which had been posted locally.9. A Member requested information about the footfall for the collection of

undelivered mail from the local sorting office.10. It should be made clear on the cards which were left at properties for any

undelivered mail, that there were other options available for the collection of

mail.11. Could snow chains be provided for the post vans during snow conditions?12. Why had Royal Mail not attended the recent exhibition for local businesses to

explain the new postal system or place an advertisement in the localnewspaper apologising to the public for the problems arising?

13. A Member had not received some Agendas over the Christmas period.14. An Agenda which had been posted to a Member had taken 4 weeks to arrive.15. Householders no longer received post every day as they had in the past.16. Why did postal workers no longer use bicycles for the postal deliveries?17. Concerns were expressed about the change in routes for the postal workers.18. How supportive were Royal Mail of its workers?19. Had the postal workers been consulted about the new postal system?

20. There had been no consultation with users of the service.21. Members had not been contacted about the new system.22. Who decided the priority for the delivery of packages or letters?23. There had been criticism of the new service by the public.24. A Member had observed a postal worker experiencing some difficulty in

manoeuvring the postal delivery trolleys at dropped kerbs.25. There was potential for the users of the trolleys to suffer back aches.26. Some trolleys had been left unattended whilst the postal worker delivered

mail to properties.27. Concerns were expressed about the change from using the rail network to

road networks.28. There would be an increase in the carbon footprint as a result of additional

vehicular movements from the current sorting office at Herne Bay to theCanterbury sorting office.

The representatives of Royal Mail responded and the points included the following:-

1. The postal trolleys used had been ergonomically tested. There were twotypes of trolleys used. One of the trolleys was of a lightweight.

2. This volume of packages affected the weight of the post delivered.3. The post trolleys had a lockable lid on top which was locked whilst the postal

workers delivered mail to properties.4. 85% of Royal Mails service was regulated by Postcom.5. The postal charges in European countries were much higher.6. Changes had been made to the Business Model to address issues arising.

Page 17


18/45

7. The representatives explained the arrangements in place for the use of postvans and post trolleys.

8. Postal workers had been consulted about the new postal system.9. Postal workers could choose their preferred route for the delivery of mail.10. There were over 7,000 delivery points in Herne Bay.11. Royal Mail felt that the best time to introduce the changes was before

Christmas, which was at a time of the year when most staff were available.12. The adverse weather conditions could not have been expected.13. There was no difference in priority for the delivery for packages or letters.14. Postal workers collected all the mail available at the sorting centre for their

delivery.15. There were approximately 100 visits by the public each day at the sorting

office to collect undelivered mail.16. There had been a significant backlog of mail to deal with before Christmas.

The backlog of mail had not been cleared until mid January.17. Some deliveries on Sundays had been introduced to cope with the backlog of

mail.

18. Royal Mail had received a lot of support from its staff.19. Royal Mail was not aware of the exhibition for local businesses.20. Royal Mail wished to be proactive and communicate with its customers and

stakeholders.21. The Regional Operations Director had written an open letter.22. There had been endeavours to try and explain the new system.23. The timing of the transfer of the sorting office to Canterbury. This might not

happen for 18 months.24. The situation regarding the parking arrangements for postal workers at the

Canterbury mail centre was being looked at. Various options were beingconsidered including the use of the Park and Ride facility, the provision of abus service for the postal workers and shift arrangements.

25. Royal Mail listened to the views of its working / user groups.26. The changes were announced in June.27. There had been a six-month consultation period with the Trade Union. The

consultation period closed in November / December.28. There had been an opportunity for views to be put forward.29. There was extensive use of the rail network.30. Royal Mail was now moving forward with the programme of changes.

The Panel Members requested Royal Mail to provide a written response on thefollowing issues:-

1. Were all the pilot schemes elsewhere in the country successful?

2. When did the pilot scheme commence at the Herne Bay Sorting Office ?3. In respect of the reference to the extensive use of the rail network, the Panel

Members understood that there were only two Royal Mail trains whichoperated a service between Wembley, London and Motherwell in Scotlandeach day. The Panel Members requested that a check be made on theposition.

The Chairman thanked the representatives of Royal Mail for their attendance andtheir presentation to the Panel.

75 FORTHCOMING DECISION LIST - 1 MARCH TO 30 JUNE 2011

The Panel noted the Forthcoming Decision List which had been published for theabove period.

Page 18


19/45

76 KENT COUNTY COUNCIL'S FORWARD PLAN

At the present time there were no relevant decisions on Kent County CouncilsForward Plan that affected the Herne Bay area.

77 GREEN SHELTER RELOCATION

(Prior to the consideration of this item Mr D Eburne, Mr A Cook and Mr A Newellspoke to the item).

The Panel considered the suggested options and AGREED to defer the report of theHead of Property and Engineering Services for a further report to the next meetingabout the costs of the engineering works required for the siting of the shelter on orclose to the originally preferred site close to its original site on the slopes betweenWestern Esplanade and Spa Esplanade, Herne Bay.

A Panel Member requested details of the agreed programme of schemes to befunded from Section 106 monies. A written response would be given to the Member.

78 PARISH COUNCILS' CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATIONS

(At the commencement of the meeting Councillors Bissett, Sonnex and Vickery-Jones had each declared a personal interest in this item because of their position asWard Members in respect of the application by Herne and Broomfield Parish Council)

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Community Development andOutdoor Leisure which advised on the parish council capital grant applications for

2011-12 and set out the options for the allocation of the 39,207 in the budget.

The Panel favoured option 3 (Funding the 7 highest scoring projects in full, and offera part payment only up to the available budget of 885 to the 8 th highest, in order toremain in budget this year and not affect next years budget).

Option 3 was recommended to the Executive for approval.

79 CHANGES TO PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE ARRANGEMENTS

The Panel noted the changes to the above arrangements as set out in the Agenda.

80 NO FISHING SIGNS AT THE POND , MEMORIAL PARK, HERNE BAY

(Prior to the consideration of this item Mr A Newell spoke to the item).

At the request of Councillor R Flaherty the Panel discussed the No Fishing signswhich had been provided at the pond at Memorial Park, Herne Bay.

An extract of the relevant byelaw regarding fishing at the pond was reported to thePanel.

Several Members felt that the byelaw did not prevent fishing at the pond providedthat the restrictions under the byelaw were not infringed.

Page 19


20/45

The Panel, therefore, asked the Officers to review the wording of the signage in orderto indicate that fishing is allowed at the pond subject to the restrictions of the byelaw.

81 RESURFACING OF ROADS IN HERNE BAY

Councillor Matthews asked the following questions and the Chairman reported theresponse of Kent Highways on the issues as indicated below:-

1. Can KCC advise why newly laid roads are breaking up ?

Kent Highways had advised that if a new surface begins to deteriorate theynotified the County improvements team who will carry out the repairs as it usuallyhas a cooling off maintenance period which can vary between jobs. Forexample potholes appeared in a newly laid road in Herne Bay recently thesewere repaired under the maintenance period.

2. Also is there being used a lower standard of surfacing than in the past ?

Kent Highways had indicated that KCC worked with Ringway for the majority ofthe repair work this means that problems are easier to solve. KHS is not awarethat the type or standard of resurfacing has got any worse but they are alwaystrying new techniques and processes, some work well and some do not.

3. Is there any national standard on resurfacing roads ?

Kent Highways had indicated that there is no National Standard of resurfacing assuch but all work is closely inspected by both the County Wide Improvementteam and the Operations Team - KCC do have guidelines set out as to the qualityof all works as well as intervention levels.

KHS have invited details of the particular locations so that they can look into thisfurther.

Councillor Matthews indicated that the response to the question 1 above did notanswer his question why newly laid roads were breaking up.

He also asked whether the lower standard of surfacing was due to new technology?

He requested answers on these issues.

The Chairman indicated that the Senior Community Engagement Manager (KCC)

would follow up these issues with Kent Highways and respond to CouncillorMatthews.

Additional points raised by other Members related to the following:

A Member had accompanied a Highway Inspector to look at the works at GreenhillRoad, Herne Bay.

It was suggested that there should be regular discussion with the Panel regardinghighway issues.

King Edward Avenue had been resurfaced approximately one year ago. The roadwas well used and the surfacing was not breaking up.

Page 20


21/45

A Member indicated that he wished to see removed the road humps in Kings Road.

Following complaints by residents Kent Highways had sorted quickly issues aboutthe works at Reculver Road.

The Chairman reported that a restructuring of the Management Team of KentHighways was in progress and the new structure would help to improve the presentsituation. He indicated that repairs to potholes would commence in the Spring.

Attention was drawn to a dangerous bend near the Punch Tavern Public House atSturry where there had been a serious accident earlier this evening.

The Chairman mentioned the danger for traffic and pedestrians at Blacksole Bridge,Herne Bay.

The Panel recommended to the KCC Cabinet that a way be found to make KentHighways more aware of the concerns locally on particular highway issues.

82 PROGRESS REPORT OF THE COASTAL TOWNS MANAGER

The Panel noted the progress report of the Coastal Towns Manager which providedan update on the following issues

New Businesses

The first of the new businesses in Bank Street had opened. It was understood that allthe units would be occupied by the summer.

The Coastal Towns Manager mentioned the opening of the shop premises Ellie

Louise and Quality Berries.

Keep Herne Bay Clean

The Coastal Towns Manager was working with Herne Bay Partners to try and makethe entrances to the town presentable.

He also mentioned that the site of the former Scruffy Ducks Public House had beencleared. The site was expected to be available in April for use as a car park.

Bay Card

The Bay Card continued to be successful with over 3,500 businesses offering adiscount or promotional offer and over 50,000 loyalty cards in circulation in HerneBay and Whitstable.

Herne Bay in Bloom

Herne Bay in Bloom was working hard to make this year even better than before.They were seeking the support of local businesses and community groups. Theofficial launch of Herne Bay in Bloom had taken place at the Kings Hall on 9 March2011.

Herne Bay Town Partners

The Herne Bay Cultural Trail had proved to be very successful.

Page 21


22/45


23/45

The Chairman indicated that he would speak to the relevant Officer to arrangethe meeting. The Chairman indicated that Members of the Panel would beadvised of the arrangements.

83 PROGRAMME OF MEETING 2011/12

It was anticipated that the next meeting would be held on Tuesday 7 June 2011 at6.30pm in the Salvation Army Hall, 33 Richmond Street, Herne Bay, subject toapproval of the programme of dates at the annual meeting of the City Council.

Future panel dates, also subject to approval at the Annual Meeting were as follows

19 July 201113 September 20118 November 2011

3 January 2012

13 March 2012

All at 6.30pm in the Salvation Army Hall.

The Panel noted these meetings.

There being no other business the meeting closed at 8.56 pm

Page 23


24/45


25/45

CANTERBURYCITYCOUNCIL

F

ORTHCOMINGDECISIONLISTOFKEYDECISIONS

DecisionTopi

c

Ward/

Wards

Openor

Confid-

ential

D

ecision

Maker

Consultation

Proposed

Decision

Making

Date

DateFinal

Report

available

from

Back

ground

Infor

mation

ContactOff

icer

Entered

onFDL

June2011

Proposed

allocationofoff-

siteopenspace

developer

contributions

Canterbury

HerneBay,

Whitstable,

Herneand

Broomfield

Chestfield.

Open

Ex

ecutive

16June

2011

7June

2011

richard.griffiths@canterbu

ry.gov.uk

16May

2011

July2011

Demolitionof

thePierPavilion

Heron

Confidential

(F)

Co

uncil

Executive16

June2011

14July

2011

8June

2011

[email protected]

16May

2011

Newbeachhut

development

sites

consultationon

options

Seasalter,

Harbour,

Tankerton,

Chestfield,

Swalecliffe

,West

Bay,Heron

andReculver.

Open

Ex

ecutive

HerneBayArea

MemberPanel

14June2011

WhitstableArea

MemberPanel

15June2011

Overviewand

Scrutiny

committee

20July2011

28July

2011

20July

2011

richard.griffiths@canterbu

ry.gov.uk

15April

2011

Page 25


26/45

DecisionTopi

c

Ward/

Wards

Openor

Confid-

ential

D

ecision

Maker

Consultation

Proposed

Decision

Making

Date

DateFinal

Report

available

from

Back

ground

Infor

mation

ContactOff

icer

Entered

onFDL

Conservation

Area

Management

Herneand

Broomfield

,Greenhill

andEddington,

Heron,

Reculver,

Little

Stour,

Bartonand

Wincheap.

Open

Ex

ecutive

28July

2011

20July

2011

Reportsto

relevant

AreaPanels

andDevelopment

Contr

ol

[email protected]

15April

2011

A

ugust2011

Noitems

September2011

SingleGrants

GatewayPolicy

All

Open

Ex

ecutive

15

September

2011

7

September

2011

[email protected]

ov.uk

16May

2011

StationRoad

West,St

Dunstansand

theWestgate

Towers:

Sustainable

Transportand

Environmental

Improvements

Westgate,

StStephens

Open

Ex

ecutive

Overviewand

Scrutinycommittee

7September

2011

CanterburyArea

MemberPanel12

September2011

15

September

2011

7

September

2011

[email protected]

16May

2011

Review/

Assessmentof

tendersrelating

toasiteat

Kingsmead

Road,

Canterbury

Northgate

Part

Confidential

(F)

Co

uncil

Overviewand

Scrutinycommittee

7September

2011

Executive15

September2011

29

September

2011

21

September

2011

[email protected]

15Feb

2011

Page 26


27/45

Note

(P)In

dicatesconfidentialpropertymatter

(F)In

dicatesconfidentialfinancialmatter

(O)In

dicatesconfidentialforsomeothe

rreasonsetoutinlegislation

Confidentialitemsaretakenwithoutpres

sandpublicpresentbecauseindividualinterestsareaffected.

Itisbelievedo

theritemsforconsiderationwillinclude:

AdoptionoftheCorporatePlan2011-16

(November2011)

CanterburyDistrictHousingPolicy

CanterburyFootballHub

ChangestotheHousingFinanceSystem

(timetablesubjecttopublicationofgovernmentguidance)

Communicationsstrategy

Future

managementofleisurecentres

HousesinMultipleOccupationPolicyresponsetoconsultation

PropertyDisposalstofundcapitalprogra

mme(whichmaybesubjecttourgencyrules,dependentonnegotiations)

XDS_

TAF

ORWARD_

JUNE2011(FINAL)Page 27


28/45

HERNE BAY AREA MEMBER PANEL

14 June 2011

Subject: The Green Shelter

Director/Head of Service: Head of Property and Engineering Services

Decision Issues: These matters are within the authority of the Board

Decision type: Non-key

Classification: This report is open to the public.

CCC Ward(s): West Bay

Summary: The report provides further information requested bythe Panel at its last meeting.

To Consider:

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

1. Introduction

At the last meeting of the Panel members discussed possible alternative locations forthe location of the newly restored Green Shelter. A photo of the shelter beforerestoration together with one of the restored structure superimposed on the slopes inthe position of Option 1 will be available at the meeting. The restored shelter will nothave the internal partitions but will be open with seating facing the sea. For thebenefit of new members of the Panel, the report considered in March is reproducedbelow.

2. Detail

Members could not reach agreement about the location for the shelter and askedofficers to provide details of the cost of engineering works that would be necessary tolocate the shelter in two alternative places. These are shown as Options 1 and 2 onthe attached plan. The works are necessary because the slopes are unstable and thedrainage system that has been installed to reduce instability must be protected toensure that it is not compromised so that it cannot do its job. The two alternativesare:



29/45

Option 1: This will involve cutting back into the slope uphill of the path andconstructing a retaining wall to hold back the slope and prevent itslipping. The estimated cost is 13,400. There are likely to be issueswith the stability of the slope during construction and this option is notrecommended.

Option 2: This will involve constructing a base for the shelter supported on legsthat are driven into the slopes so that the shelter projects over theslope downhill of the path (see cross-section on the plan). Theestimated cost of this is 14,400.

The restoration costs and originally anticipated installation costs of approximately7,000 can be met from the building maintenance fund. However the engineeringworks necessary at the two sites at Options 1 and 2 will require a further 10,000 or11,000 which the building maintenance fund cannot afford. If the Panel wishes to

pursue either of these two options it will have to refer the matter to the Executive andshould identify sources of funding for the project.

Meanwhile the restored shelter remains in storage.

The Panel is asked to decide on the preferred location

Contact Officer: Colin Pengelly Telephone: 01227 862483

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March Report -

Subject: The Green Shelter Herne Bay. AKA The Threepenny Bit Shelter

Director/Head of Service: Head of Property and Engineering Services

Decision Issues: N/A

Decision type: Non-key

Classification: This report is open to the public.

CCC Ward(s): West Bay

Summary: The Victorian cast iron and timber shelter has been restored.However, problems identified with the site originally selectedby the Panel mean that an alternative site has to be chosen.

To Agree: A revised location for the shelter.

Page 29


30/45


1. Introduction

This shelter was relocated to Western Esplanade some time after the building of the KingsHall where it was in use as a shelter and bandstand. The shelter was removed from itscurrent location on Western Esplanade in February2010 and has been restored and paintedtogether with replacement ironwork corner brackets which were cast using the best of theoriginals as a pattern. A new roof structure has been designed with appropriate seating tofollow. A revised location for the restored shelter is now required to enable reinstatement ofthe structure.

2. Detail

At the 12 January 2010 Herne Bay Area Members Panel, it was agreed that the restorationshould commence and a suitable revised location be investigated. It was further agreed atthe 9 June 2010 Herne Bay Area Members Panel that the revised location should be on thewestern grass slopes above its original position. Detailed site investigations by the CityCouncils Engineers responsible for maintaining the slopes subsequently identified that thispreferred general location was not possible due to underground drainage systems installedto ensure long term stability of the slopes.

They identified a revised location a short distance away and the contractor was asked tostart ground preparation works there. However, representations were received from thebeach hut owners association advising the revised location was unacceptable, due in part to

the proximity of the beach huts and the potential for vandalism.

A new location for the restored shelter needs to be decided.

Possible sites along the Herne Bay seafront were investigated and discussed by the areamembers panel in June 2010. It was agreed that:

a) Existing site Rejected

b) NE corner of Garden on western side of Lane End. Rejected

c) Grass slope to east side of Lane End. Rejected.

d) Western slopes above Spa Esplanade between original location and Red Shelter.Accepted

The panel is requested to reconsider option b) above and an additional proposal for re-siting the shelter on Herne Bay Pier following demolition of the existing Pavilion. The panelmay have other suggestions for consideration.

3. Consultation planned or undertaken

Discussions held with HB Beach hut owners association, Heron Angling Club, HB PAC and

Streetscene Officers. Community Safety Unit, Property Services Structures andOperations (Engineers). Portfolio holder.

Page 30


31/45

4. Options available with reasons for suitability

1. Do nothing not an option. Shelter needs to be put back in public use

2. Existing site will remain subject to vandalism and misuse with limited views.Previously rejected and site now returned to grassland.

3. NE Corner of Lane End garden Reduced risk of vandalism and antisocialbehaviour. Satisfactory disabled access. Minimum groundworks required forinstallation. Good panoramic views of seascape to Reculver, Pier, Wind Farm, Forts,Isle of Sheppey and Hampton Pier. Possible obstruction of views from nearbyproperties. Adjacent to HB conservation area boundary. Previously rejected. (but ourpreferred location)

4. Grass slope to east side of Lane End - Reduced risk of vandalism and antisocialbehaviour. Considerable groundworks required for installation to eliminate groundslippage and to create access. Limited access for disabled persons. Good views ofseascape to Reculver, Pier, Wind Farm, Forts, Isle of Sheppey and Hampton Pier.Possible obstruction of views from nearby properties. Previously rejected

5. Western Slopes above Spa Esplanade - Close to original location, Detailedgroundworks required for base works and minor reshaping of slopes in the immediatearea to accommodate shelter footprint. Adjacent to existing sloping path. Reasonabledisabled access. Reduced risk of vandalism and misuse. Good views of seascapefrom Reculver, Pier, Wind farm, Forts, Isle of Sheppey and Hampton Pier. No views

blocked from adjacent properties. Accepted but now rejected due to engineeringlimitations and local representation.

6. Herne Bay Pier following demolition works Shelter will require standalone basesuitably engineered to allow for protection and stability in high winds and adverseweather, and to facilitate later removal or repositioning without dismantling shouldfuture Pier facilities require it. Would reflect the Piers original Victorian design.

5. Reasons for supporting option 3

a) Retains shelter reasonably close to original position

b) Excellent views unobstructed by Beach Huts

c) Will fit well in landscape. Highlights local heritage and traditional appearance

d) Good general and disabled access.

e) Will permit horseshoe style seating, all with good panoramic sea views

f) Open location reduces risks of vandalism and misuse

Page 31


32/45

6. Implications

(a) Financial Implications.

6000 replacement roof and structure, groundworks and relocation. Funded from2010/2011 and 2011/2012 Building Maintenance fund.

1000 - 2000 new seating depending on material and style. Funding fromStreetscene 2011/12 budgets. Potential for employing existing seat in this location.

(b) Legal Implications. None

Other implications

(c) Staffing/resource Yes planning time

(d) Property Portfolio Yes loss of amenity if not refurbished and relocated

(e) Environmental/Sustainability No

(f) Planning/Building Regulations Unlikely

(g) Human Rights issues No

(h) Crime and Disorder Yes Reduce Vandalism & misuse

(i) Biodiversity No

(j) Safeguarding Children Potentially

(k) Energy efficiency No

7. Conclusions

The relocation of the green shelter Is essential to ensure the continued preservation of partof Herne Bays heritage by returning it to public use where it will both enhance the amenity

and enjoyment of the area with reduced risk of vandalism. The recommended location fulfilsthese values but members may wish to consider other alternatives other than 3(recommended) and 6 above. A definitive decision isneeded at the meeting becausethe contract has been let and the contractorhas only been temporarily stood down.

Contact Officer: Colin Pengelly Telephone: 01227 862483

Page 32


33/45

Page 33


34/45

1

Herne Bay Area Member Panel Report

14th June 2011

Subject: New Beach Hut development sitesNew Beach Hut development sitesNew Beach Hut development sitesNew Beach Hut development sites

consultation on optionsconsultation on optionsconsultation on optionsconsultation on options

Director/Head of Service: Head of Community Development andOutdoor Leisure

Decision Issues: Non- Key

Decision type: These matters are within the authority of theExecutive

Classification: Non-confidential

Wards: West Bay, Heron, Reculver

Summary The Beach Hut Option appraisal reportconsiders options for beach huts along theCanterbury coastline, this report focuses onthe Herne Bay area

To consider: To consider, as part of the consultationprocess the Beach Hut Option appraisal 2011report and comment back to the Executive

On the sites proposed to proceed tofeasibility stage as set out in thisreport.

On the sites proposed not to proceedto feasibility stage as set out inappendix one of this report.

Next stage in the process: The Executive on 28th July 2011 will considerthe Beach Hut Option appraisal 2011 reportincluding comments from this panel,Whitstable Area Member Panel and feedbackfrom community wide consultation.

1. IntroductionIn 2009 an Overview and Scrutiny Report recommended to develop a Beach HutStrategy to bring this forward anoption appraisal process is being implemented asoutlined below

Agree area to be considered

Initial identification of sites Agree basic criteria.



35/45

2

Agree option appraisal assessment matrix and scoring

Undertake site visits

Use basic criteria to filter out sites

Use option appraisal assessment matrix and scoring to assess remainingpotential sites

Carry out SWOT analysis of potential sites Consider preferred sites for feasibility study

The full report and appendices are available on line or in hard copy at Herne BayDistrict office and Community groups have been invited for comments by the 4th July2011.

This consultation report is part of the community wide consultation that will inform theExecutive report on the 28th July 2011.

If the Executive approve sites for further feasibility work then detailed site specificreports will come back through the Area Members Panels and onto the Executive for

a final decision.

If a site is approved for beach huts it would require planning permission with formalconsultation through the normal process.

2 Details

The community steering group consisted of representatives from Herne Bay BeachHut Association, Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Association, Herne Bay ResidentsAssociation, Whitstable Society, Whitstable Harbour Board and is supported byCouncil officers from town centre, legal services, planning, engineers, foreshore,community safety unit, transport and community development and outdoor leisure.

The community steering group initially considered the 16 sites identified in theOverview and Scrutiny 2008 Beach Hut report but then felt a full review shouldconsidered the whole coastline, except Whitstable Harbour, from Seasalter toReculver. A total of 31 different sites have been considered along the coastline

The community steering group assessed 31 sites, 1 31 West to East using theinitial criteria:

Planning - Any major constraints that would prevent beach huts from beingconsidered. (Note: planning is also in the assessment matrix)

Coastal protection the coastline of Canterbury district is complex and in need ofdefence from the sea, therefore beach huts should not undermine coastal protection.

Legal issues any restrictive legal issues or covenants that would prevent beachhuts from being considered on a site.

Of the 31 sites 20 sites were ruled out due to a mix of: planning, coastal protection orlegal reasons, see appendix one of this report.

Page 35


36/45

3

Draft community steering group proposals

The community steering group considered the remaining 11 sites for full assessmentwith a SWOT analysis and a summary of their assessment is set out below in tableone.

Table One

Sitenumber

Site name Rationale

9 Tower Hill East(base of Tower Hill)

The site is in the Whitstable Conservation Areaand Local Plan Policy C24 protected openspace. However, the site is not over looked dueto the relative steepness of the slopes and thefact that the public toilets block the view fromWhitstable, so an option of a limited number ofbeach huts along base of slopes could beconsidered. Planning Policy concerns wouldneed to be fully addressed if site went to

feasibility study stage.10 Tankerton slopes

WestAn existing beach hut site within planning policyC24, opportunity for limited infill. No coastalprotection or legal issues.

12 Tankerton Slopes East

An existing beach hut site within planning policyC24, opportunity for limited infill. No coastalprotection or legal issues.

13 Marine Crescent An existing beach hut site within flood zone 2planning policy C24 opportunity for limited infillplus a potential new site between Sailing cluband existing beach huts. No coastal protectionor legal issues.

14 Priest and Sow toSkate park(existing long rockhuts)

An existing beach hut site (Long Rock) withinflood zone 2, planning policy C24 plus C36 andEKA7 and NRM8. No coastal protection or legalissues.

20 Spa Esplanade West

An existing beach hut site within flood zone 2,planning policy C24 opportunity for limited infill.No coastal protection or legal issues.

21 Spa Esplanade East

An existing beach hut site within flood zone 2planning policy C24 opportunity for limited infill.No coastal protection or legal issues.

22 Albany Drive to the

Pier

Previously a beach hut site within planning

policy C24 and flood zone 3, opportunity toextend existing beach huts. No coastalprotection or legal issues but concerns fromengineers regarding winter storms impact onthe area.

23 Nuns Huts Within planning policy C24, Herne BayConservation area, Herne Bay RegenerationZone and flood zone 3. Some coastalprotection concerns will need to be fullyinvestigated. No legal issues. Consider forfeasibility study to investigate an opportunity to

restore historic beach huts.

Page 36


37/45

4

26 Concrete plinths atbase of Downs

Previously a beach hut site not in planningpolicy C24 and adjacent to C36 area, EKA7and NRM8. No coastal protection or legalissues, but within the proposed Downs VillageGreen application area. Historic venue forbeach huts therefore consider for feasibilitystudy.

27 Upper Steps onpromenade at baseof Downs

Previously a beach hut site within flood zone 2planning policy C24, C36 and EKA7 and NRM8plus SSSI. No coastal protection or legalissues, but within the proposed Downs VillageGreen application area. Historic venue forbeach huts therefore consider for feasibilitystudy. Planning Policy concerns would need tobe fully addressed if site went to feasibilitystudy stage.

The interpretation of the word infill is important. In planning terms it is defined as thecompletion of an otherwise substantially built up frontage by the filling of a narrowgap It should be noted that planning considers the amenity as a whole.

To avoid any misunderstanding in this report and the process moving forward thecommunity steering group proposed definition of the word infill for beach huts as:

to fill the gaps between existing beach huts within an existing beach hutboundary site. However, no beach huts will be placed in front of a dwellingssea facing boundary, obscuring a sea view. In addition sufficient access to thebeach /promenade will be retained at the base of sloped steps or paths.

If there is a desire to reinstate the end of a row of beach huts outside the existingbeach hut boundary this is not infill but will be considered as an extension and wouldbe deemed to be a new site for planning purposes.

The Community steering group proposals

The community steering group conclusions are that the option appraisal process hasbrought forward several potential sites for wider consultation on whether or not theyshould proceed to feasibility work, these are:

Site 9 Tower Hill East priority 5The community steering group propose the site for feasibility as this is a potentialnew beach hut site.

Site 10 Tankerton Slope West priority 1As an existing site it could be considered for infilling gaps between existing beachhuts within the boundary of existing beach huts. However, we would not proposeextending the rows of beach huts or adding an extra row at the back of the site.

Site 12 Tankerton Slope East priority 1As an existing site it could be considered for infilling gaps between existing beachhuts within the boundaryof existing beach huts. However, would not proposeextending the rows of beach huts or adding an extra row at the back of the site.

Page 37


38/45

5

Site 13 Marine Crescent priority 1 (infill) priority 2 for extensionAs an existing site it could be considered for infilling gaps between existing beachhuts within the boundary of existing beach huts. There is also potential for a new sitebetween the Sailing Club and existing row of beach huts.

Site 14 Priest and Sow to Skate Park priority 1As an existing site (Long Rock) it could be considered for infilling gaps betweenexisting beach huts within the boundary of existing beach huts. However, we wouldnot propose extending the rows of beach huts or adding an extra row at the back ofthe site.

Site 20 Spa Esplanade West priority 1As an existing site it could be considered for infilling gaps between existing beachhuts within the boundary of existing beach huts. However, we would not proposeextending the rows of beach huts or adding an extra row at the back of the site.

Site 21 Spa Esplanade East priority 1

As an existing site it could be considered for infilling gaps between existing beachhuts within the boundary of existing beach huts. However, we would not proposeextending the rows of beach huts or adding an extra row at the back of the site.

Site 22 Albany Drive to the Pier - summer season only priority 3The area previously had beach huts along the front although these were damagedwinter storm and removed. Therefore propose to consider reinstating summerseasonal beach huts only.

Site 23 The Nuns Huts priority 3They were previously usedas concrete beach huts so could consider an opportunityto restore and reopen.

Site 26 Concrete plinths at base of Downs priority 4Community steering group propose the site for feasibility stage as the site wasoriginally designed for beach huts and bathing huts and is an opportunity to reinstatebeach huts.

Site 27 Upper Steps of promenade at base of Downs priority 5Community steering group propose the site for feasibility stage as the site wasoriginally designed for beach huts and bathing huts and is an opportunity to reinstatebeach huts.

All of the above sites are subject to feedback from the public consultation and

approval from Canterbury City Councils executive before proceeding to feasibilitystudy.

If after a feasibility study, if any site is eventually proposed to be delivered thanplanning permission will be required.

The community steering group propose that the sites in appendix one, are notconsidered for feasibility study stage.

3 Relevant Council Policy/Strategies/Budgetary Documents

Corporate Plan

12 Encourage local people to play an active role in their communities33. Enhance the natural environment and public open space across the district

Page 38


39/45

6

Community Development Strategy1.3 To develop community infrastructure to improve the quality and range of

facilities accessible to communities

Open Space Strategy7. Seek to develop partnerships to maximise opportunities to fill the gaps in

provision and enhance open space.8. Actively promote appropriate usage of open space9. Actively involve communities in decision making, developing and managing

open space locally.

4 Consultation planned or undertaken

This is a community led consultation report and community groups have been invitedto comment on the full report available on the website or in hard copy at Herne BayDistrict Office by 4th July 2011.

The Herne Bay Area Member Panel and the Whitstable Area Member Panelmeetings on the 14th June 2011 and the 15th June 2011 respectively are publicconsultation meeting.

The Executive report will include a summary of the comments from this meeting, theHerne Bay Area Members Panel meeting and the community feedback.

If a site is approved for feasibility then consultation with specific local communitygroups directly impacted by the site will be undertaken.

5. Implications

(a) The comments from this meeting and community consultation will befed into the drafting of the report to the Executive.

(b) Legal Implications set out in report

Other implications

(c) Staffing/resource the work will be delivered within existing staffingarrangements. However, it should be recognised that the communityrepresentatives on the community steering group have put inconsiderable time and offered invaluable local knowledge.

(d) Environmental/Sustainability Environmental issues have beenconsidered in this report, if a site is approved for feasibility study thena more detailed environmental input will occur.

(e) Planning/Building Regulations There is a standard specification forBeach huts in the Herne Bay area.

Planning considerations are a key component at every stage of thisprocess.

At option appraisal stage planning guidance has been sought

At feasibility stage planning advice will be sought

If a site is approved for beach huts then full planning permission willbe required.

Page 39


40/45

7

(f) Human Rights issues Need to consider equal access issues

(g) Crime and Disorder This has been part of the option appraisalprocess.

(h) Biodiversity This will be considered if a site goes to feasibility stagevia Habitat surveys.

(i) Safeguarding Children the proposed management plan shouldimpact positively on children and young peoples lives.

6 Proposed Way Forward

6.1 The community steering groups draft report has being circulated to coastalcommunity groups, resident associations, and the general public for commentplus the public Area Members Panel meetings.

6.2 A summary of feedback will be made available online and the consultation fedinto the Executive report for a formal decision on feasibility studies.

6.3 If a proposed site is approved for feasibility study the community steeringgroup will consider:

Clarify needs

Numbers of beach huts on a site

Capital costs for each site

Capital funding options external / internal funding

Consider disposal options whether to sell the beach huts with a tenancy or

rent beach huts (weekly / monthly) Management options and revenue costs for each site

Reconsider planning policies as specific details of sites are developed plusconsider issues such as Habitat Regulations Assessment

Consultation with partners such as Environment Agency, Kent HighwaysNatural England, Kent Wildlife Trust

Specific consultation with local community groups directly impacted by a sitebeing considered.

Consider deliverability

6.4 The aim will be to bring forward site feasibility reports for comment by the end

of 2011 or early 2012.

Contact Officer: Richard Griffiths Telephone: 862001

Filename hbampbeachhuts2011Version 116.5.11Time 12 noon.

Page 40


41/45

8

Appendix One

Beach huts sites that did not pass the initial criteria

Sitenumber Name of site Reason for not passing initial criteria

1 District boundary toSeasalter Sailing Club

Concerns due to Local Plan Policy C24 and C36plus South East Plan EKA7 (NRM8) and an SSSIsite. Site is mixed ownership.

2 Seasalter Sailing Club toSluice Gates

Concerns over Local Plan policy C36 and C24 plusEKA7 (NRM8). General coastal protection (largesea defence wall) and practical engineering issues.

3 Sluice gates to ReeveBeach Whitstable

Legal concerns, not owned by council, therefore donot consider for full assessment. Planning PolicyC24 and part in Whitstable Conservation Area.

4 Reeves Beach Whitstable

Planning policy C24 and Whitstable ConservationArea. Site is used as amenity open space with aconcession and seating.

5 Reeves Beach to WestQuay Whitstable Harbour

Planning policy C24 and Whitstable ConservationArea plus mostly in private ownership.

6 Scout Hut Whitstable Harbour Board is constructing eightnew Beach Huts on the site. Therefore do notconsider site for assessment scoring.

7 Beach Walk Some legal concerns due to an existing lease on

site. Planning Policy C24 and WhitstableConservation Area, propose not to consider for fullassessment but review when lease is due forrenewal.

8 Tower Hill West Planning concerns regarding site within WhitstableConservation Area and Local Plan Policy C24,beach huts could block the view of residents andcommercial properties within the proximity of site.

11 Tankerton Slopes Central area

Planning concerns over Local Plan policy C24 andLand classification is SSSI.

15 Land east of skate park Planning concerns over Local Plan policy C24 andGreen Gap policy R8. In addition the site is withinin Flood Zone 2/3.

16 Swalecliffe Green Gap Planning concerns over Local Plan policy C24 andGreen Gap policy R8. In addition the site is withinin Flood Zone 2/3. SSSI area.

17 Studd Hill West Coastal protection and engineering concerns oversteepness and stability of slopes plus the flat areais not large enough for development of beach huts.Local plan policy C24.

18 Studd Hill Central Coastal protection and engineering concerns oversteepness and stability of slopes plus the flat area

Page 41


42/45

9

Sitenumber

Name of site Reason for not passing initial criteria

is not large enough for development of beach huts.C24 planning policy concerns.

19 Studd Hill East Planning concerns regarding C24, low flat spaceand a new site for beach huts would block theviews of local residents.

24 Central Parade The primary function of Neptune Arm and thebeach is coastal protection; in addition, the beachis adjacent to mudflats. Further along the site,towards Kings Hall, it is very tight to the road.Planning concerns regarding Local Plan policyC24, Flood Zone 3 and within Herne BayConservation area.

25 The Downs West The Downs are made of London Clay and are

prone to land slips, therefore there is a significantcoastal protection concerns regarding the softlandscaping in the area. The coastal protectionincludes drainage throughout the Downs andweights at the base to help maintain the slopesand protect the houses above. Construction abovethe drainage system could be detrimental to overallcoastal protection in the area. Also planningconcerns over Planning Policy C24 and part of siteC36, EKA7, NRM8 and at eastern end SSSI

28 Steps and promenade

along base of the DownsEast

Planning concerns over Local Plan Policy C24 and

C36 plus EKA7, NRM8 and SSSI site.

29 The Downs East The Downs are made of London Clay and areprone to land slips, therefore there is a significantcoastal protection concerns regarding the softlandscaping in the area. The coastal protectionincludes drainage throughout the Downs andweights at the base to help maintain the slopesand protect the houses above. Construction abovethe drainage system could be detrimental to overallcoastal protection in the area. Also planning

concerns over Planning Policy C24 and C36,EKA7, NRM8 and SSSI

30 Bishopstone Glen toReculver

Planning concerns over Local Plan policy C24 andC36 plus EKA7, NRM8 and SSSI site. Alsoengineering concerns over stability of cliffs in thearea.

31 Reculver Towers todistrict boundary

There are planning concerns regarding Local Planpolicy C24 and C36 plus EKA7, NRM8 and SSSIsite. Also engineering concerns about stability ofsome cliffs in area.

Page 42


43/45

My name is Jason Onion and I have an idea that I would like to propose to you all.

My home town of Herne Bay has a rich heritage and I would like to help in acknowledging

and honour its connection to the BBC TV series 'Doctor Who'

I am in discussion with Herne Bay Library regarding the installation of a full size replica

1963 TARDIS there.The reasons are to acknowledge the show's first writer 'Anthony Coburn' who lived in the

town and to gravitate children and families to use the library and its facilities.

Within this, as previously done, TV writers and/or production personnel could have event

days held there.

BBC books are interested and keen to be involved.

Ultimately in 2013, the show's 50th Anniversary, the item will be auctioned.

The monies are to be divided three ways:

1. Children in Need. (at the same time they will be auctioning another one of mine live onTV, another good plug for the town)

2. Comic Relief.

3. I've not nominated a charity as yet.

In relation to this I will be taking the replica around significant, cultural landmarks around the

Herne Bay area for reproductive prints.

Whatever I sold these for I would set aside a percentage from which I would not only give to

the aforementioned charities but voluntary donate to the BBC too.

Given that I am contracted with a BBC licensed company it has allowed me to do this with

their consent.

The second part of this proposal is the installation of a permanent working Police Box

somewhere around the entrance of the Pier this to have a plague which recognizes Anthony

Coburn's contribution.

I have approached Maidstone Police for their inclusion on this and they are favorable and

have mooted that a 360 degree camera can be installed in the top light as per the current Earls

Court Police Box, this acts as good deterrent to any wannabe vandals.

We also believe that this would be something that can continue Nationwide for other forces

with other towns and cities having their own Police Box being built by me in Herne Bay.

I wish to also involve all emergency services including St. Johns and Coastguard so that the

item functions as was originally intended whilst serving as a new landmark for the town.

I would like to point out that the library one is FREE from me.

The permanent outside one I believe could in theory be made from the Piers internal Ash

wood and/or other reclaimed material, a good Eco angle.

Having only just moved from Cornwall back to Kent I wish to bring to the town my business

and ongoing contracts, I need materials and facilities to do this and I believe that these two

proposals would help me continue this enterprise which would bring new business to the

town.I can only see positives with this and I know it will only do good for the town.

Agenda Item 16Page 43


44/45

Subject: Progress Report

Director/Head of Service: Strategic Director (Herne Bay Champion)

Head of Culture & Enterprise

Decision Issues: N / A

Decision type: N / A

Classification: Non - confidential

CCC Ward(s): Greenhill and Eddington, Herne and Broomfield,Heron, Reculver and West Bay

Summary: This is an information report from the Coastal TownsManager about local projects, events and

improvements.


1. Introduction.This is a report of progress since the last meeting of the Panel to provide an updateon projects involving the Coastal Towns Manager (Herne Bay & Whitstable).

2. Town Centre BusinessesThe tourist season has started earlier this year, thanks to the consistent spell of fineweather. Many town centre businesses have reported good sales figures from theEaster Bank Holiday onwards, it some cases sales are a month ahead of last year.New businesses have opened in the town including Butterfly Meadow, Berries Cake-Away and soon to open Peacocks. It was sad to see a long established business,Currys leave the town, this is not a reflection on Herne Bay, it is a national decisiontaken by Currys not to trade in smaller towns.I am pleased to report we still have one of the lowest number of empty retail units inKent, 5.4%. Maidstone is currently 10%, Ashford 15% and Margate 37%, the nationalaverage is 14%.

3. EventsAt Easter we held a childrens Easter Egg Hunt, which proved to be very popular,with 170 children taking part, I would like to thank the Co-op for sponsoring the event.On 30th April was the Classic Car & Bike Show, which is in its 5 th year. This was themost successful event to date, with an estimated 8000 people attending the eventthroughout the day. Some traders reported sales had tripled on the day, comparedwith the same day last year. This year we extended the event by closing off more ofMortimer Street, which allowed us to take an extra 35 vehicles. We had qualityentertainment on the main stage and entertainment throughout the town.

4. Herne Bay in Bloom

I have been very keen to support Herne Bay in Bloom this year, as they play a veryimportant part in the towns success throughout the summer. We have outstandingfloral displays on the seafront and we will soon see these coming into the town.Herne Bay in Bloom is entering into South East in Bloom and Britain in Bloom and Ihope the town will support them.



45/45

5. Herne Bay Town Partners

Herne Bay Town Partners have been very pro-active this year. Last month they helda Moving Forward Business Breakfast for local businesses, where 85 businessesattended to hear a progress report from Graham Brown, MD of Denne Construction,the developer for the regeneration of Herne Bay.Last week Town Partners added two new additions to the Cultural Trail, a bargeanchor to commemorate the transportation of coal from the North East and thenreturning to the North with wood form Blean Forest. Also an information boardhighlighting the World Air Speed Record, which was broken over Herne Bay in 1942.Town Partners would like to thank Southern Water for their sponsorship.

6. The Big Clean Herne Bay DayLast Wednesday, Herne Bay in Bloom and Herne Bay Town Partners joined forcesfor the Clean Herne Bay Day. Volunteers gave up their lunch hour and in teamsconcentrated on cleaning areas of the town. This consisted of clearing rubbish,

removing weeds and general cleaning. The event was supported by Keep BritainTidy.

7. Marketing CampaignThis year I have teamed up with the City Councils Tourism team to promote the townwith a marketing campaign to bring visitors to the town this summer. The campaignwill start at the beginning of July and run to mid August. We will be advertising thetown within an hours travelling time of the Coastal Towns. This will consist of station,billboard, bus, newspaper and social networking advertising.

Contact Officer: Chris West Telephone: 01227 868515

Page 45