Residents oppose new beach hut plans for Bognor Regis and Felpham
Public consultations and further studies into sites along Bognor Regis Promenade, between Gloucester Road and Longbrook Park in Felpham, and at the park, were approved by Arun District Council’s economy committee at its meeting on Tuesday, October 22.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe scheme was first approved in April to identify any ‘potentially viable’ sites for new beach huts, looking at six areas: Bognor Regis Promenade; Longbrook Park; Overstrand Avenue; South Strand; West Kingston; and Ferring Rife to Sea Lane.
Around 100 residents turned out for the meeting, the maximum capacity in the public gallery for the meeting, to protest the ten identified sites for new beach huts.
Council officers recommended only carrying forward sites three, four, seven, eight, nine and ten – with officers and the committee agreeing to remove sites one, two, five and six.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe committee voted on each site individually, with two sites agreed for further work, sites three and four respectively, as there was ‘no strong objection or reason not to continue with them, according to a report on the scheme presented to the committee.
After a majority of the sites were rejected by the committee, East Preston resident Mo Setterfield told the LDRS she was ‘ecstatic’ at the result but had hoped all the sites had been rejected as they were not ‘economically viable’.
Rustington resident Maria Szlentiev was also pleased with rejections, saying she would prefer the council spend the money on other ‘issues’ in the district.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCommittee Chair and Deputy Council Leader, Roger Nash (Lab, Pevensey), said this scheme was needed to increase revenue for the council, as it is predicted to run out of money in five years if savings are not made.
He said: “We did agree on a financial strategy last year, which means we need to increase revenue where we can, cut our costs. What’s being discussed tonight is in the context of that we mustn’t forget that.”
Mike Northeast (Lab, Courtwick with Toddington) said the council was having to fill a £6 million blackhole in its finances left by the previous Conservative administration.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said beach huts are ‘part’ of a seaside town, but new beach huts would need to have access to three ‘basic’ things, amenity, parking and toilets, saying the council also needed to look at how beach huts were rented out and how they ‘sell’ them to the public if built.
Matt Stanley (LDem, Marine) said the committee were not deciding where to build beach huts that day, but rather whether or not to move to the ‘next stage’ and determining financial viability of the sites.
Opposition Leader Shaun Gunner (Con, Rustington East) said in his five years as a councillor he has seen the council ‘tie itself in knots’ trying to build more beach huts, claiming ‘nobody actually wants them’.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“The strength of feeling in all of our inboxes is very clear and the strength of feeling in the gallery here tonight is very, very clear, the simplest thing to save us all time and headache would be to just throw all of them out”, he said
“These are all I believe protected open spaces in the local plan, which requires officers to provide alternative public open spaces if these are built on – what alternative to our seafront greens have they got in mind?”
Mark Turner (Con, Ferring) said he thought there was a ‘questionable’ market for beach huts in Arun due to ‘a lack of market evidence’ and a declining market for lease beach huts, due to a perception by some leaseholders that ADC’s charges and Ts and Cs are ‘unfavourable’.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said: “There is a deteriorating literal zone across the district due to poorly maintained sea defences, sandy beaches are definitely a thing of the past, at least in Ferring.
“There is restricted access for construction and maintenance traffic, there is no parking available for new beach huts – there are no safe and secure locations for the installation of new beach huts.”
Alison Cooper (Con, Rustington East) said she was concerned about the waste of officer time on the scheme, adding the scheme would seek to benefit ‘well-off’ people, whilst other residents would be ‘denied’ their current amenities and ‘much coveted’ greenspace.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdResidents and parish councillors from affected areas raised their concerns to the committee through a series of 13 questions.
One resident, Mr Boddington, said the council did not own some of the land it planned to build on, asking how they planned to resolve this should they go ahead with the plans.
Other residents raised concerns about flooding and flood defences, as well as asking about how many new huts would be built should plans go ahead.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAnother resident, Mr Paul Scott, asked when the council planned to pay off the beach hut costs, as new huts approved in Littlehampton were looking at 14 years to pay off.
Cllr Nash, as chair, said further details about the ‘business case’ and any covenants affecting the sites would be dealt with in the next stage of work on the scheme if the sites were approved.
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.