False facts arising in west Beach court wrangle

I note in your article that you state that the case is “Newhaven Town Council versus Newhaven Port & Properties” however that is not the case.

There are actually two appellants shown versus the NPP, the premier one being named as East Sussex County Council and Newhaven Town Council shown as the second appellant.

However the outcome of this appeal is almost certainly a “dead duck” according to a response I had from a representative of Newhaven Town Council, when I pointed out that, in an official transcript of the handed down judgment of 2012 available on the internet, Mr Justice Ousely in paragraph 1 of his summing up, gives a totally false and misleading statement of facts in which he states (and I quote verbatim from the report) :-

The beach ... remains wholly covered by the sea for 42 per cent of every 25 hours 10 minutes of the full tidal cycle. It is wholly uncovered for only a few minutes each day.

I personally have sat on that (uncovered) beach continuously for an hour and a half with my children in the 1960s and 1970s without being submerged and engulfed by the tide. As no doubt have many others, and the photos taken years ago which are available of people enjoying the facility, most certainly belie the above statement of “a few minutes”.

I consider that the opportunity should now be taken at the Supreme Court Hearing of November 3rd/4th, by both Newhaven Town Council and East Sussex County Council, to again raise the matter of how long the sandy beach is uncovered and useable.

After all if the money spent by NPP in legal fees fighting the case together with the money appropriated by both councils for their legal fees, had instead been used to make safe the areas NPP consider unsafe, then the saga need never have continued.

Richard Beckett