Storm whips up over beach huts

Robert Beadle, who lives in an apartment at Trafalgar House, Bedford Avenue, said he first became aware that the beach huts were being moved when he looked out of his window one morning and saw a large crane.

Mr Beadle said: "The first I knew of the huts being moved was when I looked out and saw a large crane/hoist on the promenade."

The large hoist was being used by the council to move six beach huts westward along East Parade to an area of the beach that Mr Beadle claims, "they knew very well did not have the appropriate consent."

The council say they had to move the huts as they had become unstable due to shingle movement on the beach, but Mr Beadle is not convinced and feels that, at the very least, the council had a duty to consult local residents about their plans.

He said: "The council apologised for not giving advance notice of these works either by displaying a notice, notifying local residents or issuing temporary closure/restriction notices on the promenade.

They say they have a 'moral duty' to hut license owners but what about the duty to inform and consult local residents and users of the beach and promenade? The works were not an emergency. The council had monitored the situation for eighteen months and we had noticed discussions taking place on the promenade, surveys on the beach and the annual repairs to the shingle in the previous month."

He added: "In September 2004 the then Social Directorate wrote, 'There are no planning consents for further huts on the East Parade and it is unlikely that any would be granted.'"

In a letter, Cllr for Sackville Ward, Deirdre Williams said: "It has been said that 'additional' huts have been added '“ I can assure everyone that this is not the case '“ the numbers remain the same.

The shingle has shifted badly and beach huts that have been affected have had to be moved for obvious reasons to an area that is stable. I am also aware that some people are unhappy because they believe that their view is obstructed."

She added: "Retrospective planning has been applied for."

In reply to Cllr Williams' comments Mr Beadle said: "The area that these huts have been relocated to is no more stable than where they were originally '“ it's just that the shingle has recently been built up at the west end using a bulldozer '“ to protect other huts that were being undermined just as severely! This stretch of beach is simply not suitable for stationing beach huts without constant expense to rebuild the shingle bank. A retrospective application has still not been submitted."

"The arguments about views from the promenade for walkers and people using the benches, adequate beach access for those without huts, sanitary provisions and the lack of profit from issuing licenses for huts because of the cost of maintaining the shingle bank etc., will no doubt be raised by others when the planning application is submitted."

In a statement Rother technical services officer Alwyn Roebuck said: "In past years the spring tides have brought sufficient shingle to act as sea defence and provide an area for the beach huts. However, over the last year, the huts have been put at greater risk by a lack of shingle; several had become undermined, one removed and one repositioned and therefore the decision was taken to move six beach huts a short distance west along the beach on a temporary basis."

He added: "It is not unusual to apply for retrospective planning permission in such instances where immediate action is required to protect property. Had the council not acted the beach huts would have fallen into the sea, causing distress to the license owners and possible future costs. We are not installing additional beach huts, simply moving existing huts a short distance while the problem is addressed."