Agenda item

This report presents feedback following consultation with Ward & Division Councillors, Town Councils, and Parish Councils regarding the ten previously identified potential additional beach hut sites in accordance with resolution of Minute 771 of the Economy Committee 16 April 2024. And seeks approval to progress investigations and public consultation on selected sites.

(Councillor Alison Cooper redeclared a Personal Interest in this agenda item [Additional Beach Hut Consultation] as a Rustington Parish and West Sussex County Councillor.

Councillor Andy Cooper declared a Personal Interest in this agenda item 6 [Additional Beach Hut Consultation] as Vice-Chair of Rustington Parish Council.)

The Chair invited the Property, Estates and Facilities Manager to present the report to the Committee which set out options for potential sites for new Beach Huts to be built. The report followed a previous report submitted to the April 2024 meeting of the Committee where members instructed Officers to undertake consultation with Parishes and Town Councils and Ward Members and report its findings back to the Committee. The requested consultation was now complete, and the responses had been reported factually within the report. He confirmed that all consultation responses had been considered and had highlighted several matters which would be investigated further for any sites that were to be considered for further progression. However, at this stage, there was no change to the known barriers to practical delivery at any of the considered sites, as legal due diligence, scheme design, and business case testing was yet to be undertaken. The Officer recommended list of proceedable sites had therefore remained unchanged. It was expected that the Committee may debate the merits and impact of the representations which had been made, and potentially amend the selection of sites for further consideration. He explained that regardless of which sites Committee resolved should proceed, the Officer recommendation would undertake full legal due diligence and public consultation simultaneously as the next stage to progress this piece of work. The reporting back to the Committee with the findings of that public consultation and legal due diligence, where draft scheme layouts and outline business cases for those sites considered viable would be presented. He then drew members attention to the supplementary agenda item that had been provided, which had originally been published as exempt but was now available with a small redaction. He confirmed that the redacted words would prejudice the Council’s position with a separate potential land transaction, and it would therefore not be appropriate to discuss that element in open session.

           Before inviting members to debate the Chair requested for members to propose and second the officer recommendations detailed in the report. The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Stanley and seconded by Councillor Northeast.

            The Chair then suggested to members that at the end of debate, the committee took a separate vote on each site recommended. He then invited members who had indicated that they wanted to speak. The first member was Councillor Gunner, who started his speech by thanking all members of the public who had turned out to attend the meeting. He stated that when the report was first reported to committee in April 2024 he’d argued strongly against the proposal and since then, his view had harden. He did not understand why the council wanted to complete consultation  on the sites as all of the sites identified had issues, he went on to say he believed some members of the committee may be in favour of removing site 7 from further progression and that this would satisfy all concerned, however, he explained that he wanted all sites removed from any further progression, explaining that discussion on beach huts had been had for a long time and the council had found itself ‘being tied in knots, struggling to deliver beach huts’. He asked members how many of them became elected Councillors to deal with proposal such as this, and how many of them would be lobbying against this item if they were not an elected council member.  He went on to highlight some of the issues related to the various sites, toilet provision, parking provision, sites located on private residential estates, connection to water supply, ecology concerns for site 6 as it (and others) had restrictions due to vegetation and shingle beaches and that many sites had covenants attached to them of which specifically for site 7 he confirmed one of the covenants specifically detailed ‘no activity could be completed, that may cause an annoyance to the surrounding properties’. He then asked the public gallery to raise their hand if beach huts in the location would cause them an annoyance, to which the public gallery raised their hands. In summing up he raised concern at the suggestion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) being used as a source of funding that had been mentioned in response to one of the public questions that had been asked. He urged members to consider rejecting all sites proposed for further consideration due to the strength of feeling that had been made clear in the already received consultation responses received, and the clear strength of concern highlighted by the high public attendance at the meeting, further confirming he would support any amendment to remove any sites from further progression adding that members did not stand for election to put beach huts on greenswards, these were protected public open spaces in the councils Local Plan. He then requested that at the time the vote was taken these be recorded. 

          The Chair thanked the councillor for his interesting points made, however stated that members needed to balance those against the Councils Financial Strategy that had been agreed in 2023 where it outlined that the council needed to increase its revenue and income streams, and this should not be forgotten. He then invited the next member to speak, councillor Alison Cooper.

          Before making her comments, Councillor Cooper redeclared her Personal Interest in this item. She then advised members that she had significant concerns regarding the amount of officer time that had already been expended on this item, suggesting that the demand for sites had not yet been explored fully, the beach huts offered would have reduced accessibility and amenities and the increased costs associated, this work should have been completed before any feasibility studies were completed. She raised further concern relating to costs and potential financial return for the council not being realised for at least 15 years. She also stated that she felt the report had not addressed the parking concerns raised adequately. In addressing the issues relating to land covenants, she highlighted that the loss of green space was not supportive of the Councils’ Local Plan or Parish Neighbourhood Plans. That she felt the council would be overlooking residents needs and wants should work progress and expected that there would be difficulties if any site reached Planning permission stage. In summing up she urged members to reject the proposals to move forward and let officers focus on work that would bring real, economic and financial benefit for the District.

          The Chair then invited Councillor Andy Cooper to speak where he advised he was concerned at the lack of consultation with some of the neighbouring Parishes who would be directly impacted should those sites be progressed. He explained that he could not support any of the sites and would like to see all rejected.

          Councillor Northeast was next to address the committee where he stated that what initially looked like a potentially good revenue opportunity to consider, had now transpired not to be the case. He stated that he believed that beach huts should be a part of seaside towns, but he wondered if those on the current waiting lists for a beach hut had been consulted, and how would they feel about the sites that had no water supply, lack of parking and no other amenities nearby. He then raised concerns at the usage of the beach huts currently in situ at Littlehampton, stating he didn’t believe they were very well used. He suggested the Tourism potential should be reviewed to ensure that if any sites were to progress that they would be used by those visiting the district. He then asked officers if the business case had been completed yet, where it was confirmed that business case appraisals had not yet been completed or looked at as officers had focused on undertaking the consultation request as directed by the committee at its April 2024 meeting. 

          Councillor Stanley was next to be invited to speak, he thanked the public for attending the meeting and said it was encouraging to see so many people taking the time to attend and engage with the council. He then thanked officers for the report and reminded all, that officers undertake instruction from members of which this report returning to committee was one. He believed that detailed consultation had been completed and did not like the implications made that those officers had ignored things. It was for members to review the report as presented and then make a decision. He addressed comments he had heard during debate regarding the financial impacts by reminding members that it was made clear that this consultation would be done without that being completed at the meeting in April.  He confirmed his support for comments made by Councillor Northeast relating to those on the waiting list for beach huts and the potential tourism interest in the listed report being known. His final point highlighted was that the response to the consultation that had been undertaken for the report showed the importance of the process.

          The Chair then invited Councillor Penycate to speak where she spoke to her concerns relating to the sites that would see beach huts in place so close to residential properties, memorial benches, and footpaths stating that she did not feel these were appropriate locations. She did confirm that she could support the proposal for site 4. 

          As there were no other members of the Committee wanting to speak, the Chair confirmed with the committee members that they were happy to hear from some of the non-committee members that had indicated they wanted to address the committee, this was agreed. The Committee then heard from 5 non-committee members who all raised various concerns relating to the proposed sites. 

          After the committee had heard from those non-committee members, the Chair returned to the seconder and proposer of the officer recommendation, who both confirmed they had nothing further to add. The Chair then confirmed that a recorded vote had been requested and that except for recommendation 2.2 which would be taken as one vote, each of the remaining sites would be voted on individually. Before the vote was taken Councillor Gunner asked for assurance that should any sites that were to be agreed to be removed, would not return and other sites would not be added for consideration at a later date.

The results of each of the recorded votes are below.

2.2 that further consideration of sites 1 (Bognor Regis Promenade (shingle) between the pier and Alexandra Theatre), 2 (Bognor Regis Promenade (shingle) between Albert Road and Gloucester Road), 5 (Blakes Road and Culver Road greensward areas, Felpham) and 6 (Littlehampton Promenade (shingle) between Beach Crescent and Handon Avenue) be halted.

Those voting For (11) Cooper, Mrs Cooper, Edwards, Gunner, Lawrence, Nash, Northeast, Oppler, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman.

2.3 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 3 (Bognor Regis Promenade (rear of prom) between Gloucester Road and Longbrook Park)

Those voting FOR (5) Nash, Northeast, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman, Voting AGAINST (5), Cooper, Mrs Cooper, Edwards, Gunner and Oppler, Voting to ABSTAIN (1) Lawrence. As the vote was tied the Chair used his casting vote which was FOR. Therefore, this site was approved to proceed.

2.4 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 4 Longbrook Park, Felpham)

Those voting FOR (6) Lawrence, Nash, Northeast, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman, voting AGAINST (4) Cooper, Mrs Cooper, Edwards, and Gunner, voting to ABSTAIN (1) Oppler. Therefore, this site was approved to proceed.

2.5 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 7 (Overstrand Avenue greensward, Rustington)

Voting result, voting FOR (0), AGAINST (11), Cooper, Mrs Copper, Edwards, Gunner, Lawrence, Nash, Northeast, Oppler, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman, ABSTAIN (0) Therefore this site was not approved to proceed.

2.6 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 8 (South Strand shingle beach, East Preston)

Voting result, voting FOR (0), AGAINST (11), Cooper, Mrs Copper, Edwards, Gunner, Lawrence, Nash, Northeast, Oppler, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman, ABSTAIN (0) Therefore this site was not approved to proceed.

2.7 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 9 (West Kingston shingle beach and greensward)

Voting result, voting FOR (0), AGAINST (11), Cooper, Mrs Copper, Edwards, Gunner, Lawrence, Nash, Northeast, Oppler, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman, ABSTAIN (0) Therefore this site was not approved to proceed.

2.8 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 10 (Ferring Rife to Sea Lane greensward, Ferring)

Voting result, voting FOR (0), AGAINST (11), Cooper, Mrs Copper, Edwards, Gunner, Lawrence, Nash, Northeast, Oppler, Penycate, Stanley and Woodman, ABSTAIN (0) Therefore this site was not approved to proceed.

            The Committee

                      RESOLVED

2.2 that further consideration of sites 1 (Bognor Regis Promenade (shingle) between the pier and Alexandra Theatre), 2 (Bognor Regis Promenade (shingle) between Albert Road and Gloucester Road), 5 (Blakes Road and Culver Road greensward areas, Felpham) and 6 (Littlehampton Promenade (shingle) between Beach Crescent and Handon Avenue) be halted.

2.3 To proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 3 (Bognor Regis Promenade (rear of prom) between Gloucester Road and Longbrook Park) and at Site 4 Longbrook Park, Felpham)

2.4 Not to proceed in exploring the potential for new beach hut installations at Site 7 (Overstrand Avenue greensward, Rustington), Site 8 (South Strand shingle beach, East Preston), Site 9 (West Kingston shingle beach and greensward) and Site 10 (Ferring Rife to Sea Lane greensward, Ferring).

The Chair then announced a 20-minute adjournment at 19:24 to be taken to allow for those in the Public Gallery who wanted to leave the meeting and for members and officers to take a comfort break. The meeting readjourned at 19:39.