No further action on Sandsfoot access but Greenhill Gardens still up for discussion

No further action on Sandsfoot access but Greenhill Gardens still up for discussion

A petition was launched to restore access to Sandsfoot Beach

Chalets at Greenhill

First published in News
Last updated
Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Trainee Reporter

NO FURTHER action will be taken to restore access to Sandsfoot Beach, councillors have decided.

A special meeting was called tonight after a petition calling for access to be restored and another petition to protect Weymouth's Greenhill Gardens gained enough signatures to trigger a debate.

Cllr Ian Bruce stirred the audience when he described the Sandsfoot petition, which was submitted by Green Party member Clare Sutton, as a 'Green Party stunt'.

The footpath to the beach, also known as Castle Cove, was closed off last year following a landslip. The footbridge was also removed following safety concerns.

Ms Sutton believes proper access should be arranged so families can visit and enjoy the area again.

A report presented to councillors said an alternative route to the beach had been looked at but deemed unviable.

Speaking to councillors Ms Sutton asked the council to seek clarification from the County Council regarding the stability of the path.

Ms Sutton also produced a figure of £7000 to £8000 for the cost of an alternative set of steps.

She said: "Given the popularity of the beach I believe this would be representing excellent value for money and if necessary a fund could be established so people could contribute."

But Cllr John Birtwhistle proposed Weymouth and Portland Borough Council look no further in to the matter after saying: "The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it.

"I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, 'Please land stop moving' but I can't do it.

Speaking after the meeting, Ms Sutton said: “I am incredibly disappointed. Given the huge public support for this, I honestly thought they would get all the interested parties together to see if we can, together, find a cost-effective solution.

“I made a number of what I think were very reasonable suggestions but councillors did not respond directly to any of them.

“It would cost them virtually nothing to look again at the stability of the top half of the path, the plan put to the Council for a much cheaper new bridge, and possible use of the existing slipway.

“Not a single one of our local councillors in Weymouth East or Weymouth West was even willing to say, let’s look into these suggestions.

“More than anything, I completely fail to understand how they could show such disdain for the 1850 people who signed the petition. They had all clearly decided what they were going to do before I spoke and all, bar one, put party politics above the public interest.

“I’m not sure what to do next, but in the meantime, please write to your councillor.”

Meanwhile, councillors have referred the issue of keeping Greenhill Gardens in public stewardship to Management Committee.

The Greenhill petition was launched by resident Geraldine Owen.

The council is looking to sell the lease for the chalets and associated facilities to save money and has recently completed a public consultation on the move.

The site has received interest from two community groups whilst inquiries have also been made from private investors.

Geraldine Owen said the gardens were a valuable community resource which could be lost forever if the council isn't careful.

She added: "If the public stewardship goes ahead to restore the chalets there are people here with very clever ideas of generating money. The facilities there will be remain as they are."

Cllr Peter Chapman said the burden needed to be removed from the public.

He said: "The £800,000 to £900,000 to repair the chalets is a big ask."

But he made clear the council had no hidden agenda.

He added: "There is no intention among the 36 councillors or any of the officers for this space to be anything different than what it already is."

Cllr Ian Bruce echoed Cllr Chapman's comments, maintaining the gardens were safe. He added: "Please assume that we are completely open-minded about this and we will get through the consultation period."

The outcome of the public consultation will be made available in a report to the Management Committee on July 1, and will be discussed alongside Ms Owen's petition.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:48am Fri 6 Jun 14

Ermmmmmm says...

Such a shame sandsfoot access will not be opening again where are the locals going to go now?! A crowded main beach or an oil filled beach by the sailing club... Gutted :-(
Such a shame sandsfoot access will not be opening again where are the locals going to go now?! A crowded main beach or an oil filled beach by the sailing club... Gutted :-( Ermmmmmm
  • Score: 25

5:42am Fri 6 Jun 14

PHonnor says...

Also voted on was a Labour proposal to increase council take on empty home by 50%, thus raising much needed funds for the council coffers, an idea which I believe most residents would support. It was rejected by the con/lib group with no reason given. I do hope this is not a sign of things to come and councillors can overcome their personal & party agendas to benefit the borough, I won't hold my breath though.
Also voted on was a Labour proposal to increase council take on empty home by 50%, thus raising much needed funds for the council coffers, an idea which I believe most residents would support. It was rejected by the con/lib group with no reason given. I do hope this is not a sign of things to come and councillors can overcome their personal & party agendas to benefit the borough, I won't hold my breath though. PHonnor
  • Score: 24

7:04am Fri 6 Jun 14

Rocksalt says...

PHonnor wrote:
Also voted on was a Labour proposal to increase council take on empty home by 50%, thus raising much needed funds for the council coffers, an idea which I believe most residents would support. It was rejected by the con/lib group with no reason given. I do hope this is not a sign of things to come and councillors can overcome their personal & party agendas to benefit the borough, I won't hold my breath though.
I suppose I wouldn't expect anything different from the Tories, but this sort of thing exposes the Lib Dems as untrustworthy opportunists.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: Also voted on was a Labour proposal to increase council take on empty home by 50%, thus raising much needed funds for the council coffers, an idea which I believe most residents would support. It was rejected by the con/lib group with no reason given. I do hope this is not a sign of things to come and councillors can overcome their personal & party agendas to benefit the borough, I won't hold my breath though.[/p][/quote]I suppose I wouldn't expect anything different from the Tories, but this sort of thing exposes the Lib Dems as untrustworthy opportunists. Rocksalt
  • Score: 23

10:12am Fri 6 Jun 14

elloello1980 says...

"The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it.

"I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, 'Please land stop moving' but I can't do it."

What a pathetic comment from some one in his position. Cllr John Birtwhistle, have some respect!
"The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it. "I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, 'Please land stop moving' but I can't do it." What a pathetic comment from some one in his position. Cllr John Birtwhistle, have some respect! elloello1980
  • Score: 14

10:27am Fri 6 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

elloello1980 wrote:
"The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it.

"I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, 'Please land stop moving' but I can't do it."

What a pathetic comment from some one in his position. Cllr John Birtwhistle, have some respect!
He's right you could spend thousands repairing/rebuilding and it WILL all be a waste of money, 1 year 2 year 5 year who knows, no-one knows when, but it would happen, that's is for certain. Fully support that comment. Without abuse.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: "The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it. "I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, 'Please land stop moving' but I can't do it." What a pathetic comment from some one in his position. Cllr John Birtwhistle, have some respect![/p][/quote]He's right you could spend thousands repairing/rebuilding and it WILL all be a waste of money, 1 year 2 year 5 year who knows, no-one knows when, but it would happen, that's is for certain. Fully support that comment. Without abuse. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 4

11:04am Fri 6 Jun 14

Preston North End says...

Locals should look to their shovels.
Locals should look to their shovels. Preston North End
  • Score: 7

12:57pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Micke12 says...

"The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it.'

Are these the same engineers that underestimated the cost of the repairs to the quay wall where Condor Ferries berth and that cost the council tax payer twice the amount originally stated. Can we trust any of the consultants, that this council employs, to get their data correct.
"The coast is unstable. I choose to believe the consultant engineers that we brought in to look at it.' Are these the same engineers that underestimated the cost of the repairs to the quay wall where Condor Ferries berth and that cost the council tax payer twice the amount originally stated. Can we trust any of the consultants, that this council employs, to get their data correct. Micke12
  • Score: 11

4:10pm Fri 6 Jun 14

shy talk says...

So its low tidal access to Sandsfoot then. Or some enterprising person could operate a ferry service when the tides in. A pound to go there and two pounds to come back or wait for the tide to go out.
So its low tidal access to Sandsfoot then. Or some enterprising person could operate a ferry service when the tides in. A pound to go there and two pounds to come back or wait for the tide to go out. shy talk
  • Score: 5

4:27pm Fri 6 Jun 14

wykeregislad says...

I kayak to this beach a lot there is a set of steps which at present are locked which could gain access to this beautiful beach , I'm not sure who exactly owns them , but surely someone ( dare I say a counciliour we voted in approach said landowner ) with the council and see if some sort of temporary access could be granted even if for a few months during the summer, until a time when there is obviously funds ,( I know that could be a long time lol) but to just forget it is such a shame.... Maybe some sort of lottery grant ?
As for mr Bruce comments there absurd ,
I kayak to this beach a lot there is a set of steps which at present are locked which could gain access to this beautiful beach , I'm not sure who exactly owns them , but surely someone ( dare I say a counciliour we voted in approach said landowner ) with the council and see if some sort of temporary access could be granted even if for a few months during the summer, until a time when there is obviously funds ,( I know that could be a long time lol) but to just forget it is such a shame.... Maybe some sort of lottery grant ? As for mr Bruce comments there absurd , wykeregislad
  • Score: 9

4:31pm Fri 6 Jun 14

shy talk says...

wykeregislad wrote:
I kayak to this beach a lot there is a set of steps which at present are locked which could gain access to this beautiful beach , I'm not sure who exactly owns them , but surely someone ( dare I say a counciliour we voted in approach said landowner ) with the council and see if some sort of temporary access could be granted even if for a few months during the summer, until a time when there is obviously funds ,( I know that could be a long time lol) but to just forget it is such a shame.... Maybe some sort of lottery grant ?
As for mr Bruce comments there absurd ,
The landowner has said no to access via the steps you have mentioned.
[quote][p][bold]wykeregislad[/bold] wrote: I kayak to this beach a lot there is a set of steps which at present are locked which could gain access to this beautiful beach , I'm not sure who exactly owns them , but surely someone ( dare I say a counciliour we voted in approach said landowner ) with the council and see if some sort of temporary access could be granted even if for a few months during the summer, until a time when there is obviously funds ,( I know that could be a long time lol) but to just forget it is such a shame.... Maybe some sort of lottery grant ? As for mr Bruce comments there absurd ,[/p][/quote]The landowner has said no to access via the steps you have mentioned. shy talk
  • Score: 2

4:31pm Fri 6 Jun 14

wykeregislad says...

Preston North End wrote:
Locals should look to their shovels.
I don't think that's such a bad idea, look at the reaction to the storms in the winter , with a bit of social media ,support, I'm sure a local engineer and some local business would donate materials and people power the council un achievable could become achieve able
[quote][p][bold]Preston North End[/bold] wrote: Locals should look to their shovels.[/p][/quote]I don't think that's such a bad idea, look at the reaction to the storms in the winter , with a bit of social media ,support, I'm sure a local engineer and some local business would donate materials and people power the council un achievable could become achieve able wykeregislad
  • Score: 5

4:35pm Fri 6 Jun 14

wykeregislad says...

shy talk wrote:
wykeregislad wrote:
I kayak to this beach a lot there is a set of steps which at present are locked which could gain access to this beautiful beach , I'm not sure who exactly owns them , but surely someone ( dare I say a counciliour we voted in approach said landowner ) with the council and see if some sort of temporary access could be granted even if for a few months during the summer, until a time when there is obviously funds ,( I know that could be a long time lol) but to just forget it is such a shame.... Maybe some sort of lottery grant ?
As for mr Bruce comments there absurd ,
The landowner has said no to access via the steps you have mentioned.
If that's the only access then they need to discuss with the land owner , how do you know said land owner wouldn't sit down with the local authorities and come up with a plan
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wykeregislad[/bold] wrote: I kayak to this beach a lot there is a set of steps which at present are locked which could gain access to this beautiful beach , I'm not sure who exactly owns them , but surely someone ( dare I say a counciliour we voted in approach said landowner ) with the council and see if some sort of temporary access could be granted even if for a few months during the summer, until a time when there is obviously funds ,( I know that could be a long time lol) but to just forget it is such a shame.... Maybe some sort of lottery grant ? As for mr Bruce comments there absurd ,[/p][/quote]The landowner has said no to access via the steps you have mentioned.[/p][/quote]If that's the only access then they need to discuss with the land owner , how do you know said land owner wouldn't sit down with the local authorities and come up with a plan wykeregislad
  • Score: 4

6:31pm Fri 6 Jun 14

weymouthfox says...

How can we have confidence in our hapless councillors? I suspect they are waiting for another Howard Holdings to come along and build a 12 storey block of flats on the tennis courts
How can we have confidence in our hapless councillors? I suspect they are waiting for another Howard Holdings to come along and build a 12 storey block of flats on the tennis courts weymouthfox
  • Score: 2

7:29pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ashers 5 says...

Unfortunately Mr Bruce,doesn't understand the folks of Weymouth and Portland's wishes.
Rightly or wrongly I've voted Tory all my life but comments like his are sure to turn locals against him. You're not in touch with your electorate Mr Bruce
It's wasn't a "Green Party Stunt" as he calls it but the desire of folks to use a local amenity
We,as a family live in Wyke and always use that beach during the summer `I'ts a "locals" beach last year we accessed the beach via various means and will continue to do so by hook or by crook.
I'm willing to donate £100 to start the ball rolling should a fund be set up to reinstate said steps.
Unfortunately Mr Bruce,doesn't understand the folks of Weymouth and Portland's wishes. Rightly or wrongly I've voted Tory all my life but comments like his are sure to turn locals against him. You're not in touch with your electorate Mr Bruce It's wasn't a "Green Party Stunt" as he calls it but the desire of folks to use a local amenity We,as a family live in Wyke and always use that beach during the summer `I'ts a "locals" beach last year we accessed the beach via various means and will continue to do so by hook or by crook. I'm willing to donate £100 to start the ball rolling should a fund be set up to reinstate said steps. Ashers 5
  • Score: 8

9:50pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Portland Rupert says...

The reason the public access footpath has been closed is probably very simple; adjoining the footpath is a development site that is up for auction on 28th June. See:-

http://www.symondsan
dsampson.co.uk/aucti
ons/properties-for-a
uction?display=detai
ls&pg=1&pid=DOR14018
5

The site is described as:

"An exciting and unique development site of about 1/2 an acre with planning consent for 3 cliff top villas outstanding sea views incorporating Portland Harbour, Weymouth Bay and Chesil Beach. The site which boasts stunning panoramic views across the World heritage Jurassic Coastline incorporating the Harbour, Weymouth Bay and the Famous Chesil Beach could provide the ideal opportunity for buyers to create their dream beach side home"

Well a "dream beach side home" on a beach to which there is no public access is clearly going to be a lot more valuable than a home on a beach to which the "great unwashed" public have access.

Interesting though that the site already has current consent (ref:12/00240/FUL), which was approved in June 2012, to build three spacious villas. If, as according to Cllr John Birtwhistle, "The coast is unstable", why was this permission granted? If the land is so unstable that the council do not consider it worth spending £8,000 on replacing the steps, why does the site have a guide price of £450,000 - £495,000? All very curious......
The reason the public access footpath has been closed is probably very simple; adjoining the footpath is a development site that is up for auction on 28th June. See:- http://www.symondsan dsampson.co.uk/aucti ons/properties-for-a uction?display=detai ls&pg=1&pid=DOR14018 5 The site is described as: "An exciting and unique development site of about 1/2 an acre with planning consent for 3 cliff top villas outstanding sea views incorporating Portland Harbour, Weymouth Bay and Chesil Beach. The site which boasts stunning panoramic views across the World heritage Jurassic Coastline incorporating the Harbour, Weymouth Bay and the Famous Chesil Beach could provide the ideal opportunity for buyers to create their dream beach side home" Well a "dream beach side home" on a beach to which there is no public access is clearly going to be a lot more valuable than a home on a beach to which the "great unwashed" public have access. Interesting though that the site already has current consent (ref:12/00240/FUL), which was approved in June 2012, to build three spacious villas. If, as according to Cllr John Birtwhistle, "The coast is unstable", why was this permission granted? If the land is so unstable that the council do not consider it worth spending £8,000 on replacing the steps, why does the site have a guide price of £450,000 - £495,000? All very curious...... Portland Rupert
  • Score: 10

10:53pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Micke12 says...

Portland Rupert wrote:
The reason the public access footpath has been closed is probably very simple; adjoining the footpath is a development site that is up for auction on 28th June. See:-

http://www.symondsan

dsampson.co.uk/aucti

ons/properties-for-a

uction?display=detai

ls&pg=1&pid=
DOR14018
5

The site is described as:

"An exciting and unique development site of about 1/2 an acre with planning consent for 3 cliff top villas outstanding sea views incorporating Portland Harbour, Weymouth Bay and Chesil Beach. The site which boasts stunning panoramic views across the World heritage Jurassic Coastline incorporating the Harbour, Weymouth Bay and the Famous Chesil Beach could provide the ideal opportunity for buyers to create their dream beach side home"

Well a "dream beach side home" on a beach to which there is no public access is clearly going to be a lot more valuable than a home on a beach to which the "great unwashed" public have access.

Interesting though that the site already has current consent (ref:12/00240/FUL), which was approved in June 2012, to build three spacious villas. If, as according to Cllr John Birtwhistle, "The coast is unstable", why was this permission granted? If the land is so unstable that the council do not consider it worth spending £8,000 on replacing the steps, why does the site have a guide price of £450,000 - £495,000? All very curious......
Sounds like developers are getting out the little brown envelopes again and bunging a few quid here and there to certain councillors.

If, as has been indicated in this comment, there is planning permission for 3 cliff top villas, which has been in the pipeline for a number of months or weeks, then the council is obviously thinking the £450,000 income to the coffers is better that £8,000 out of the coffers.

There is a distinct smell of local authority and developer corruption here, but hey, so what, that is nothing unusual for this council and/or, it's officers.

What do you think everyone out there????
[quote][p][bold]Portland Rupert[/bold] wrote: The reason the public access footpath has been closed is probably very simple; adjoining the footpath is a development site that is up for auction on 28th June. See:- http://www.symondsan dsampson.co.uk/aucti ons/properties-for-a uction?display=detai ls&pg=1&pid= DOR14018 5 The site is described as: "An exciting and unique development site of about 1/2 an acre with planning consent for 3 cliff top villas outstanding sea views incorporating Portland Harbour, Weymouth Bay and Chesil Beach. The site which boasts stunning panoramic views across the World heritage Jurassic Coastline incorporating the Harbour, Weymouth Bay and the Famous Chesil Beach could provide the ideal opportunity for buyers to create their dream beach side home" Well a "dream beach side home" on a beach to which there is no public access is clearly going to be a lot more valuable than a home on a beach to which the "great unwashed" public have access. Interesting though that the site already has current consent (ref:12/00240/FUL), which was approved in June 2012, to build three spacious villas. If, as according to Cllr John Birtwhistle, "The coast is unstable", why was this permission granted? If the land is so unstable that the council do not consider it worth spending £8,000 on replacing the steps, why does the site have a guide price of £450,000 - £495,000? All very curious......[/p][/quote]Sounds like developers are getting out the little brown envelopes again and bunging a few quid here and there to certain councillors. If, as has been indicated in this comment, there is planning permission for 3 cliff top villas, which has been in the pipeline for a number of months or weeks, then the council is obviously thinking the £450,000 income to the coffers is better that £8,000 out of the coffers. There is a distinct smell of local authority and developer corruption here, but hey, so what, that is nothing unusual for this council and/or, it's officers. What do you think everyone out there???? Micke12
  • Score: 7

12:13am Sat 7 Jun 14

Ermmmmmm says...

We wil never have access to this beach again by the sounds of it .. I did think it strange the beach was bought then access stopped due to a landslip.. Funny how the local residents are not selling up..hope you enjoy your profit land owner at the expense of every local in weymouth.. Ill gotten gain is no gain at all
We wil never have access to this beach again by the sounds of it .. I did think it strange the beach was bought then access stopped due to a landslip.. Funny how the local residents are not selling up..hope you enjoy your profit land owner at the expense of every local in weymouth.. Ill gotten gain is no gain at all Ermmmmmm
  • Score: 4

2:09am Sat 7 Jun 14

JamesYoung says...

Ermmmmmm wrote:
We wil never have access to this beach again by the sounds of it .. I did think it strange the beach was bought then access stopped due to a landslip.. Funny how the local residents are not selling up..hope you enjoy your profit land owner at the expense of every local in weymouth.. Ill gotten gain is no gain at all
I think we need to be careful in using the word "landowner".
The beach was last sold a couple of years ago, but the ACCESS that we are talking about here (the boat ramp) belongs to the houses that are built where the old sailing club was, not to the people that own the beach.
Presumably they want their little path, which they paid for as part of their homes, to remain theirs. I understand that - after all, if you bought a field, you wouldn't take kindly to hordes of people crossing it.
If the owners of those houses were a little more enterprising, though, they could charge admission.
[quote][p][bold]Ermmmmmm[/bold] wrote: We wil never have access to this beach again by the sounds of it .. I did think it strange the beach was bought then access stopped due to a landslip.. Funny how the local residents are not selling up..hope you enjoy your profit land owner at the expense of every local in weymouth.. Ill gotten gain is no gain at all[/p][/quote]I think we need to be careful in using the word "landowner". The beach was last sold a couple of years ago, but the ACCESS that we are talking about here (the boat ramp) belongs to the houses that are built where the old sailing club was, not to the people that own the beach. Presumably they want their little path, which they paid for as part of their homes, to remain theirs. I understand that - after all, if you bought a field, you wouldn't take kindly to hordes of people crossing it. If the owners of those houses were a little more enterprising, though, they could charge admission. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

2:14am Sat 7 Jun 14

JamesYoung says...

Micke12 wrote:
Portland Rupert wrote:
The reason the public access footpath has been closed is probably very simple; adjoining the footpath is a development site that is up for auction on 28th June. See:-

http://www.symondsan


dsampson.co.uk/aucti


ons/properties-for-a


uction?display=detai


ls&pg=1&pid=

DOR14018
5

The site is described as:

"An exciting and unique development site of about 1/2 an acre with planning consent for 3 cliff top villas outstanding sea views incorporating Portland Harbour, Weymouth Bay and Chesil Beach. The site which boasts stunning panoramic views across the World heritage Jurassic Coastline incorporating the Harbour, Weymouth Bay and the Famous Chesil Beach could provide the ideal opportunity for buyers to create their dream beach side home"

Well a "dream beach side home" on a beach to which there is no public access is clearly going to be a lot more valuable than a home on a beach to which the "great unwashed" public have access.

Interesting though that the site already has current consent (ref:12/00240/FUL), which was approved in June 2012, to build three spacious villas. If, as according to Cllr John Birtwhistle, "The coast is unstable", why was this permission granted? If the land is so unstable that the council do not consider it worth spending £8,000 on replacing the steps, why does the site have a guide price of £450,000 - £495,000? All very curious......
Sounds like developers are getting out the little brown envelopes again and bunging a few quid here and there to certain councillors.

If, as has been indicated in this comment, there is planning permission for 3 cliff top villas, which has been in the pipeline for a number of months or weeks, then the council is obviously thinking the £450,000 income to the coffers is better that £8,000 out of the coffers.

There is a distinct smell of local authority and developer corruption here, but hey, so what, that is nothing unusual for this council and/or, it's officers.

What do you think everyone out there????
I'm not sure that this site is where the footpath is, but even if it is: with all the visible subsidence in the area, would you buy a cliff top home there?
[quote][p][bold]Micke12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portland Rupert[/bold] wrote: The reason the public access footpath has been closed is probably very simple; adjoining the footpath is a development site that is up for auction on 28th June. See:- http://www.symondsan dsampson.co.uk/aucti ons/properties-for-a uction?display=detai ls&pg=1&pid= DOR14018 5 The site is described as: "An exciting and unique development site of about 1/2 an acre with planning consent for 3 cliff top villas outstanding sea views incorporating Portland Harbour, Weymouth Bay and Chesil Beach. The site which boasts stunning panoramic views across the World heritage Jurassic Coastline incorporating the Harbour, Weymouth Bay and the Famous Chesil Beach could provide the ideal opportunity for buyers to create their dream beach side home" Well a "dream beach side home" on a beach to which there is no public access is clearly going to be a lot more valuable than a home on a beach to which the "great unwashed" public have access. Interesting though that the site already has current consent (ref:12/00240/FUL), which was approved in June 2012, to build three spacious villas. If, as according to Cllr John Birtwhistle, "The coast is unstable", why was this permission granted? If the land is so unstable that the council do not consider it worth spending £8,000 on replacing the steps, why does the site have a guide price of £450,000 - £495,000? All very curious......[/p][/quote]Sounds like developers are getting out the little brown envelopes again and bunging a few quid here and there to certain councillors. If, as has been indicated in this comment, there is planning permission for 3 cliff top villas, which has been in the pipeline for a number of months or weeks, then the council is obviously thinking the £450,000 income to the coffers is better that £8,000 out of the coffers. There is a distinct smell of local authority and developer corruption here, but hey, so what, that is nothing unusual for this council and/or, it's officers. What do you think everyone out there????[/p][/quote]I'm not sure that this site is where the footpath is, but even if it is: with all the visible subsidence in the area, would you buy a cliff top home there? JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

7:59am Sat 7 Jun 14

bentleyboy says...

It will be most interesting IF this 'unstable' site sells at the auction, as it is not just the £450,000 -£495,000 guide that needs to be spent- that is just the start of the gigantic costs involved to stabilise that area, which is bang in the centre of the worst possible part of the landslide risk area, according to the Council commissioned and paid for extensive survey. How the Council gave planning permission for houses to be built there is very questionable indeed, given that the councillor John Birtwhistle now says categorically that the whole area is unstable. The path to the beach runs right alongside the proposed development area. Even if the £6000 is raised by the local support, to build steps, the Council leaders will probably not allow the steps to be built anyway, as they own the access path. It looks like their minds were made up before the meeting, so massive local support meant absolutely nothing to them.
It will be most interesting IF this 'unstable' site sells at the auction, as it is not just the £450,000 -£495,000 guide that needs to be spent- that is just the start of the gigantic costs involved to stabilise that area, which is bang in the centre of the worst possible part of the landslide risk area, according to the Council commissioned and paid for extensive survey. How the Council gave planning permission for houses to be built there is very questionable indeed, given that the councillor John Birtwhistle now says categorically that the whole area is unstable. The path to the beach runs right alongside the proposed development area. Even if the £6000 is raised by the local support, to build steps, the Council leaders will probably not allow the steps to be built anyway, as they own the access path. It looks like their minds were made up before the meeting, so massive local support meant absolutely nothing to them. bentleyboy
  • Score: 3

12:11pm Sat 7 Jun 14

shy talk says...

bentleyboy wrote:
It will be most interesting IF this 'unstable' site sells at the auction, as it is not just the £450,000 -£495,000 guide that needs to be spent- that is just the start of the gigantic costs involved to stabilise that area, which is bang in the centre of the worst possible part of the landslide risk area, according to the Council commissioned and paid for extensive survey. How the Council gave planning permission for houses to be built there is very questionable indeed, given that the councillor John Birtwhistle now says categorically that the whole area is unstable. The path to the beach runs right alongside the proposed development area. Even if the £6000 is raised by the local support, to build steps, the Council leaders will probably not allow the steps to be built anyway, as they own the access path. It looks like their minds were made up before the meeting, so massive local support meant absolutely nothing to them.
Totally agree Bentleyboy. For those who are interested planning permission was granted in 2012 (Ref: WPBC 12/00240/FUL).
[quote][p][bold]bentleyboy[/bold] wrote: It will be most interesting IF this 'unstable' site sells at the auction, as it is not just the £450,000 -£495,000 guide that needs to be spent- that is just the start of the gigantic costs involved to stabilise that area, which is bang in the centre of the worst possible part of the landslide risk area, according to the Council commissioned and paid for extensive survey. How the Council gave planning permission for houses to be built there is very questionable indeed, given that the councillor John Birtwhistle now says categorically that the whole area is unstable. The path to the beach runs right alongside the proposed development area. Even if the £6000 is raised by the local support, to build steps, the Council leaders will probably not allow the steps to be built anyway, as they own the access path. It looks like their minds were made up before the meeting, so massive local support meant absolutely nothing to them.[/p][/quote]Totally agree Bentleyboy. For those who are interested planning permission was granted in 2012 (Ref: WPBC 12/00240/FUL). shy talk
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Mike Edwards says...

When the landslip occured it only effected a small area at the top of the steps . The steps were in good condition and there was still access . The question is why were the steps removed because people still clamber down to use the beach which is more dangerous than it would be if they had left the steps in situ . I suppose it's the council absolving themselves of any responsibility , unless anyone knows different .
When the landslip occured it only effected a small area at the top of the steps . The steps were in good condition and there was still access . The question is why were the steps removed because people still clamber down to use the beach which is more dangerous than it would be if they had left the steps in situ . I suppose it's the council absolving themselves of any responsibility , unless anyone knows different . Mike Edwards
  • Score: 3

10:25pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Preston North End says...

"Massive local support meant nothing to them."

Won't have meant nothing but needs to backed up with a credible threat of tangible, significant negative impact to the council or councillors to succeed, i.e. loss of money; risk to other, more important plans they have in motion or in mind; litigation that they would likely lose; loss of personal power. This is how lobbying works.
"Massive local support meant nothing to them." Won't have meant nothing but needs to backed up with a credible threat of tangible, significant negative impact to the council or councillors to succeed, i.e. loss of money; risk to other, more important plans they have in motion or in mind; litigation that they would likely lose; loss of personal power. This is how lobbying works. Preston North End
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree