11
The Chairman invited Mr Scott, who was speaking on behalf of the petitioners, to outline the reasons for the submission of the petition and to state the action that he would like the Council to take.
Mr Scott reported that the petition had been signed by over 4,000 people, who wished the Council to reverse their position and allow the beach huts in the Spa area at Felixstowe to remain. He reported that the beach huts in Felixstowe were the oldest in the UK, with some dating as far back as 1900. Therefore, it was important that they were protected and allowed to remain in this Conservation Area. To remove the beach huts from the Spa area would be an act of civic vandalism. Mr Scott stated that the Council's decision to remove the beach huts was contrary to the local Conservation Area, the Town Plan and East Suffolk Council's Core Values. The petition had received support from a wide range of sources including the Victorian Society, Historical England, English Heritage and the Felixstowe Society.
Mr Scott stated that there were 2 principle reasons why East Suffolk Council wished to remove the beach huts, which were:
•
That the beach huts caused an obstruction on the promenade. Mr Scott denied that they caused an obstruction. He stated that the beach huts had been located on the promenade at Felixstowe Spa for over 80 years and no complaints had been received by the Council relating to obstruction during that time.
•
The beach levels were too low due to erosion and therefore could not support the beach huts. Mr Scott stated that East Suffolk Council's own strategy stated that the Council had a legal responsibility to replenish the beach, at the latest between 2025 and 2027. There was also another argument put forward by the Council, that any beach replenishment undertaken would not be to the level of the Promenade, which the Council felt was needed to enable huts to return to the beach. However, replenishment to the level of the promenade was not necessary for the proposals which had been put forward by the Petitioners.
Mr Scott argued that the beach huts sited at Felixstowe Spa Pavilion had become a unique heritage asset, with significant potential for the future. He explained that the spa huts could be the focus for heritage signage, information could be provided about the history of the beach huts and their impact on the British seaside, whilst some spa huts could be open for special educational “living museum” days. There were also commercial opportunities for memorabilia and gifts based on the first beach huts in Britain and Mr Scott stated that the energy which was currently being put into saving the huts, could then be channelled into making this unique heritage asset a success.
Mr Scott then referred to the options available to enable the continued use of the beach huts. He referred to the most viable option, which was to use platforms and he confirmed that the hut owners would be willing to pay those costs in full, which were estimated to be £116,160, compared to the Council’s £500,000 estimated costs. Mr Scott confirmed that the platform option was sustainable, with an estimated life span of 20 years, and they had already been used by some beach hut owners successfully in Felixstowe for about 80 years. Timber platforms were also used at beaches across the UK, including Felixstowe, Essex and Norfolk. He commented that the platforms would cause no greater Health and Safety risk than at any other beach huts in the UK. Mr Scott provided reassurance that all of the platforms would have hand rails and the beach huts owners would all agree to have public liability insurance.
The second option was the proposal for niches, which would cost £9,000 per hut, and which would be paid for by the beach hut owners. It was noted that only an unused grass verge area would be lost to create the niches and the niches would result in an increase in space on the beach and the promenade. Mr Scott explained that niches were currently in existence for benches in that area and if more niches were created, there would be no obstruction of the promenade at any time. It was reported that, historically, the huts had originally been in this exact same space, on the grassed area. The proposals, with East Suffolk Council’s support, would create a unique tourist attraction that celebrated a Felixstowe heritage asset and which had National Interest. He commented that the regional and national publicity for the Spa Pavilion Beach Huts could be easily pivoted to become a fantastic opportunity for Felixstowe tourism.
Mr Scott summarised that the 2 proposals suggested by the petitioners were both sustainable, they had many benefits and were at no cost to the taxpayer, as all the associated costs would be paid for by the beach hut owners. The beach hut owners were very keen to talk to East Suffolk Council and wanted to find a way forward. Mr Scott encouraged anyone interested to visit the area, to see the unique site for themselves. Mr Scott advised that he had a panel of experts on the beach huts with him this evening, to assist with any queries which may arise during the discussions.
The Chairman thanked Mr Scott for his presentation and she then invited the Leader of the Council, Councillor Gallant, to speak on this item.
The Leader stated that this was a very important issue, which he wanted to cover in a lot of detail. Therefore, he proposed that the Council suspend Council Procedure Rule 13.4 to allow for speeches to last for longer than 5 minutes, which was seconded by Councillor Goldson and upon being put to the vote it was
RESOLVED
That Council Procedure Rule 13.4 be suspended for this item of business, to allow speeches to last for longer than 5 minutes.
The Leader stated that he and Ms Hack, Programme Manager, would provide a presentation regarding the beach huts. The presentation commenced with the petition that had been received, which was:
“The beach has disappeared In front of the spa pavilion beach huts rather than find an acceptable resolution the council have terminated our licences. The beach huts have been in the same position for over 100 years and are oldest beach huts in the UK. normally for 6 months of the year the huts spend the winter on the promenade, now apparently due to supposed complaints we cannot stay on the prom.
There are many unanswered questions firstly why has nothing being done to rectify why the beach has washed away after £10 million was spent on groin works to hold the Beach in place.
Please support our plight in keeping part of our National Heritage otherwise 44 huts will be removed forever.”
The Leader explained that the current situation was that there were 44 beach huts on the Promenade at the Spa without a licence and that the site licences were terminated for their positions on the beach on 31 March 2022. The termination of the licences led to a deficit of circa £23,420 per year for the Council in licence fees for those beach huts. It was noted that the Council had submitted 4 planning applications, that were heard in March 2022, which would have offered new locations for all 44 huts, however, 2 of the applications had been refused by the Local Planning Authority. In total, 30 new hut sites had been secured and the licence holders had been asked for their preferences for the 30 sites, with consideration given to health and personal circumstances. There remained 14 beach huts without a site. Members noted that the Felixstowe Beach Hut and Chalet Association had served the Council with an application for a Judicial Review, which they submitted on 4 May 2022.
The Leader then provided some background information regarding beach huts across East Suffolk. He reported that the Council had issued 1,675 licences for huts and chalets over the whole district. There were 919 licenced sites for beach huts in Felixstowe, these huts were privately owned and could therefore be sold by the owner. He reported that the hut locations were moved from time to time due to coastal forces, beach maintenance or development reasons and the last major movement was the termination of circa 1,000 licences at Manor End in the 1980’s. It was noted that licences were currently issued on a 3-year term. It was noted that the 44 licence holders in the Felixstowe Spa area made up 4.8% of the beach huts in the resort and the 14 without a site, just 1.5%.
In respect of the promenade itself, the Leader reported that it had Highway status and was maintained by Suffolk County Council to footpath standards. Also, the beach huts at Pier South, Pier North and the Spa had a licence to be located on the beach, with positions shown by markers on the edge of the Prom, however they are moved to the Promenade at the end of the season, between October and Easter, for winter storage.
Members noted that in July 2017, concerns were raised that beach material was being washed away under huts located directly in front of the Spa, due to tidal erosion. Subsequently, 9 huts (numbers 32 to 40) were moved back onto the Promenade for safety reasons for the rest of the season, due to the continued cliffing of the beach in this bay.
In February 2018, officers from the Coastal Management Team had undertaken a site visit and they had determined that there was not enough beach material in situ available to create a sand platform for any of the 55 huts at the Spa. The decision was made to leave them on the promenade temporarily, until a solution could be determined. On the 1 March 2018, the ‘Beast from the East’ had colluded with Storm Emma, and scoured the beaches further, which exposed concrete and metal structures from WW2. The Leader stated that the hut licence holders were written to, explaining the situation, a range of solutions were explored throughout the year and a meeting was held with hut owners in December 2018, giving the options for relocation.
The Leader reported that in 2019, planning permission was received for the creation of 16 new beach hut sites at The Dip. These were a mixture of new huts and relocation opportunities, 2 huts had relocated there from the Spa and there were currently 4 spaces empty. A planning application was then submitted to create a further 6 hut sites at Pier South, alongside the extension and strengthening of the concrete wall. This was rejected by the Local Planning Authority Committee on its first submission. It was noted that a planning application to create 5 new hut spaces to the south of the current row at Manor End was granted and 4 huts had subsequently moved to this location. Further proposals were then considered.
The Leader invited Ms Hack to continue with the presentation. Ms Hack confirmed that, in 2019, a proposal was put together for the creation of wooden platforms at the Spa location. With advice from Planning, Coastal Management and a Structural Engineer, it was determined that the design used at the Fludyers site was not sufficiently robust for the Spa location, nor did individual platforms meet current H&S criteria. A large platform in alternative bays, on which 8 to 10 huts would be placed was subsequently agreed. The consultation plans had been presented to hut licence holders at a face-to-face meeting held at Felixstowe Town Hall in June 2019 and costings for the proposal were budgeted at circa £500,000. However, after further research, concerns over the business case for the timber platforms were raised internally by the Council. The project was deemed high risk, detrimental to the environment, difficult to engineer, costly and only had a projected 20-year life span in that location, with no guarantee of achieving planning permission. The proposed bays for their location were also not the preferred ones of hut owners, many of whom had expressed a wish, through the Association, to go back to their former locations.
A further proposal was created, regarding demountable blocks. Ms Hack stated that a submission was made to Planning for an engineering trial over the summer period, which would use two of the existing bays that beach huts had been formerly placed on. The proposal for the trial was of an experimental design, building up a concrete retaining wall behind which sand would be infilled and levelled and huts could be placed onto. The wall was proposed to be made of interlocking concrete demountable blocks, approximately 2000 mm square by 1000 mm deep built two blocks high. The costings for the trial were circa £131,000 excluding VAT with the cost of the whole scheme circa £407,000 and a further annual cost of removing the blocks for the winter of £156,000. It was noted that, although the trial received planning permission, due to COVID and the subsequent lockdowns, the concrete could not be manufactured as all but essential businesses had halted manufacture.
Ms Hack reported that in February 2021, Felixstowe beachfront was hit by Storm Darcy and the beach material was scoured further, which halted the beach platform trial due to lack of depth. It was then determined that returning the huts to the beach in this location would not be feasible. Ms Hack confirmed that beach hut licence holders were written to, explaining the situation and a face-to-face meeting was organised at Trinity Park in July, led by the Leader of the Council. After consultation with the Association, 4 sites were put forward for relocation and these options were presented to hut licence holders. The Council began to prepare planning applications for these 4 sites and submitted them in Nov-Dec 2021. Members noted that it had been stated at the meeting that if those final relocation sites did not come to fruition, the Council’s only option would be to terminate the licences on 31 March 2022.
Ms Hack confirmed that in February 2022, termination letters and notices were sent to the 44 beach hut owners for their current licences at the Spa. Hut owners were informed that alternative sites were being taken forward to Planning and that licences in respect of huts currently at this location would not continue beyond the end of March 2022. It was acknowledged that the outcome of these applications was yet to be determined but, if successful, the huts could then be moved, and new licences issued for the new locations. In March 2022, the Local Planning Authority refused 2 of the 4 sites submitted and this left 30 new hut locations available out of a potential of 64. It was noted that the hut owners were formally asked to state a preference for one of the new locations available and empty their huts ready to move by 25 April. On 24 March, the Petition was received by the Council. On 4 May, the Felixstowe Beach Hut and Chalet Association served the Council with an application for a Judicial Review.
Ms Hack then provided further information in relation to beach replenishment. It was reported that, in order to carry out beach replenishment to the extent needed for beach huts, extensive beach material would need to be bought in from either a donor site or a quarry with the correct type of sand. A potential donor site at North Felixstowe, to the seaward of the Golf Course, had been found, which was in an Environment Agency (EA) managed area. Movement of beach material from there to the Spa would require a combination of off and on road haulage, with double handling in between. As well as permission from the EA, the Council would also need permission and a licence from Crown Estates. Members noted that there were concerns that breeding birds may use the vegetated shingle area above high tide for nesting between March and August and, as sand would be moved in April, mitigation for this would be required. There was also great uncertainty around the longevity or the ‘stickingness’ of the sand, with thousands of tons capable of being moved by a single storm. It was confirmed that the volume of beach material required to be imported to support the 2021 works was planned at around 400 cubic meters to create one sand platform. This was £30 per m3 of cost at 2021 prices, which equated to circa £48K per replenishment for four bays.
With regard to beach management, it was noted that the design of the 2012 works had anticipated that beach volumes in the groyne bays would reduce and that additional beach recharge would be needed by 2032. It was noted that the Council's Capital Programme had included an item for this work at the Central and Southern Felixstowe frontages after 2025. Members noted that the cost of these works would probably reach several million pounds and this size of spend would require grant in aid, which was unlikely to be justified on amenity benefit grounds alone. Ms Hack reported that the trigger for major capital improvement would be when the coast protection function of the seawall was a risk. The beach volume required to sustain the beach huts on the beach was much greater than the volume needed to protect the coast. It was stated that changes to the design of the groynes to the Spa frontage may be needed to improve beach stability, however, this would have a significant cost of approx £200,000 to £250,00 per groyne, of which there were 5. The costs involved in recharging even a small section of beach were high, due to the fixed costs for the mobilisation of equipment.
Ms Hack then explained the reasons why the promenade was unsuitable for the placement of the beach huts. She reported that whilst the huts had stood for many years on the promenade over the winter months, they had always been moved back onto the beach for the summer months. In recent years, the number of visitors to the resort had increased considerably, particularly since Covid 19, and with the ongoing development and investment in the town, popularity was likely to increase further. The promenade was an important feature that enabled large numbers of people to travel the length of the seafront on foot and by cycle. The Leader took the opportunity to thank Ms Hack for her detailed presentation, despite being poorly.
In conclusion, the Leader reported that the beach huts at the Spa Pavilion were removed from the beach and placed on the promenade due to coastal erosion and storm damage, which took away much of the beach material, making the area uneven, low lying and prone to further erosion. The huts had now been situated on the promenade for four seasons, which was only ever intended to be a temporary situation, pending investigations into potential alternatives. He stated that the Council had explored over 20 options for the reinstatement or relocation of the Spa huts over the past 4 years, however, the continued beach erosion and lack of suitable land to move the huts to had been a challenge. It was reported that under the terms of the License to occupiers, East Suffolk Council was required to make 'all reasonable endeavours to offer the licensee an alternative site.'
The Chairman advised that the 30 minutes allocated for discussion of the petition had been completed. The Leader proposed that a further 30 minutes be made available for the discussions on this item, which was seconded by Councillor Rivett. Upon being put to the vote it was
RESOLVED
That the discussion on the petition continue for a further 30 minutes.
The Leader then read through the proposed recommendations from the slide, which were:
1. That the Council shares the disappointment expressed by the 44 affected beach hut owners.
2. That the Council acknowledges that coastal erosion is an escalating issue and ongoing risk to our resorts, assets and facilities.
3. That the Council appreciates the hard of work officers to find a solution acceptable to all parties.
4. That the Council recognises the permanent placement of huts on the Promenade will restrict its use by the wider community.
5. That the Council remains willing to engage in mediation regarding new ideas for relocating the 14 huts left without a site.
6. That the Council supports the actions to date and directs that the results of the Judicial Review are reported back to Full Council in due course.
The Leader stated that he would answer questions at this point in proceedings and would welcome a debate upon this matter.
Councillor Beavan asked whether deeper niches had been considered or investigated? The Leader reported that they had been considered and discussed with Planning Officers. However, the niches currently in place were already cutting into grassed areas used by others, however, by adding in deeper niches for the beach huts would take away even more of the grassed areas, reducing the amenity of others.
Councillor Topping asked whether the 14 beach huts which were without a new site, could remain on the promenade while mediation and further discussions took place? The Leader responded that those 14 beach huts did not have planning permission to be there and their licences had been revoked. It was now time to move forward and find new sites for those beach huts.
Councillor Daly commented that mediation could be very helpful and he queried if there was a timeline for the 14 beach huts to be moved and, if so, would that be after the Judicial Review had been completed? The Leader stated that the huts needed to be moved now, as they had already been there for 4 years. He reported that it was not just the 14 beach hut owners without a new site who wanted to stay on the promenade, the majority of the 44 beach hut owners wished to remain, however, that was not an option.
Councillor Wiles asked how many of the beach hut owners were Felixstowe residents? He also queried whether Suffolk County Council Highways had been contacted about the beach huts on the promenade? The Leader reported that it did not matter where the beach hut owners lived, the huts needed to be moved from the promenade.
Councillor Byatt referred to earlier in the presentation when it was stated that beach hut owners were offered to relocate their huts to The Dip and only 1 had accepted. He asked why that site was proving to be unpopular? He also queried whether the 2 applications which were rejected by the Local Planning Authority could be reconsidered? The Leader reported that The Dip was less popular, as it was nearer the golf club, had fewer amenities and provided a very different offer to the Spa area. He stated that the 2 applications had been firmly rejected after due deliberation by the Local Planning Authority and there was no scope to challenge that or opportunity to further amend those applications.
Councillor Byatt asked if the Judicial Review would look at the 2 applications which were rejected and the processes involved in that. The Leader commented that the Judicial Review would only look at the decision-making process of the Council in relation to the beach huts, not at the applications.
Councillor Green congratulated the Chairman on her appointment and he asked if a ‘tenancy at will’ arrangement could be put into place for the beach huts on the promenade? The Leader reported that the Council did not wish to have the beach huts on the promenade at all and they had already been there for 4 years. He stated that it was not appropriate for the huts to be there and that the Council would not wish to set a precedent in this respect.
Councillor Craig said that it was disappointing to see that there had been a lack of engagement from East Suffolk Council regarding the beach huts. She asked how it had been decided which of the 44 beach huts would be allocated one of the 30 new sites? The Leader stated that the Council had been working closely with others to find a solution for this issue. He confirmed that there was no easy to way to choose who would be allocated a new site. The fairest way to allocate them was to draw names out of a hat.
Councillor Green stated that hut owners have suggested using concrete blocks, as well as rising platforms, to allow the beach huts back onto the beach. He asked the Leader to explain the difference between the hut owners plan and the Council's, and why the engineers had rejected the hut owners suggestions? The Leader reported that the tide and sea were very powerful and were able to move large amounts of beach material, several tonnes in fact, in a short space of time. The platforms suggested would not have the structural integrity or the strength to withstand the power of the sea.
Councillor Smith-Lyte reported that she had not noticed being obstructed on the promenade by the beach huts, when she had visited the area. She queried, as the Judicial Review was currently underway, whether the beach huts could be evicted from the promenade at this time? The Leader provided clarification that the beach huts would not be evicted, their licences had been terminated, therefore they had no right to be located on the promenade. The licences were clear, concise and they could be terminated by the Council, if needed. Those beach huts currently had no licences and they needed to be moved. The Leader was concerned that, if there were a large number of visitors to the promenade over the summer, and it became crowded, there was a chance that someone could drop over the side and seriously hurt themselves, due to the significant drop in beach levels.
Councillor Beavan stated it was a great shame if removal of the beach huts would lead to their destruction. The Leader reported that the beach huts were not replicas, they were old and original, however they were made to be transportable. The Council would continue to support their heritage, in a way that did not negatively impact the amenity of the sea front and promenade. He provided clarification and reassurance that the huts remained the property of their owners and they would not be destroyed by the Council.
The Chairman stated that the additional 30 minutes had been used. The Leader then proposed that a further 15 minutes be added to the discussion of this item of business, which was seconded by Councillor Rivett. Upon being put to the vote it was
RESOLVED
That this matter be discussed for an additional 15 minutes.
Councillor Gooch raised concerns that the beach huts were fragile due to their age and she asked if they could be moved them safely? The Leader reported that the Council were experts in moving beach huts. The huts would be lifted up and moved, then they would all be checked to ensure that they were structurally sound, prior to being moved to their new site.
There being no further questions, the Leader moved the 6 recommendations on the slide, which were seconded by Councillor Rivett:
1. That the Council shares the disappointment expressed by the 44 affected beach hut owners.
2. That the Council acknowledges that coastal erosion is an escalating issue and ongoing risk to our resorts, assets and facilities.
3. That the Council appreciates the hard of work officers to find a solution acceptable to all parties.
4. That the Council recognises the permanent placement of huts on the Promenade will restrict its use by the wider community.
5. That the Council remains willing to engage in mediation regarding new ideas for relocating the 14 huts left without a site.
6. That the Council supports the actions to date and directs that the results of the Judicial Review are reported back to Full Council in due course.
The Chairman invited Members to debate.
Councillor Bird stated that he was Vice Chairman of Planning Committee South and he confirmed that the 2 planning applications which had been rejected had been thoroughly considered and due diligence had been undertaken. He commented that the Members of the Committee took their responsibilities seriously.
Councillor Beavan stated that there was a strong case for some beach huts staying on the promenade, as it was unfair to remove them if they had nowhere else to go. He felt that more time and compassion was needed to find a solution to this problem.
Councillor Deacon offered his congratulations to the Chairman on her election. He agreed that the promenade was somewhat pinched with both the pedestrians and beach hut users and that there was a long drop onto the beach, which was dangerous. He confirmed that he was unhappy that an alternative location had not yet been found for 14 of the beach huts. He then stated that he wished to propose an amendment to recommendation 5, to include the words Independent and Binding before the word Mediation. Therefore, he proposed that recommendation 5 should be amended to read:
5. That the Council remains willing to engage in independent, binding mediation regarding new ideas for relocating the 14 huts left without a site.
This proposed amendment was seconded by Councillor Byatt.
Councillor Deacon also asked for further clarification about how the Judicial Review would impact the progress in respect of the beach huts. Mr Bing, Monitoring Officer, reported that the Judicial Review would look at the Council's conduct to date. He confirmed that if there was a full Judicial Review hearing, the actions of the Council could be upheld or its decisions could be quashed and the Council asked to reconsider its actions.
Councillor Deacon confirmed that he had sympathies with both the beach hut owners and the Council. Mr Bing, Monitoring Officer, provided clarification that the amendment had been moved and seconded and the amendment now needed to be debated, prior to going to the vote.
Councillor Deacon confirmed that he believed having Independent, Binding Mediation would assist progress significantly, as the Mediator would need to have oversight of the whole case, be impartial and ensure that the 2 sides came to an agreement.
The Leader stated that he could not support this proposed amendment and he supported the original wording of the recommendation. He felt that an independent person may not be cognisant of all the legal, technical and procedural issues involved in this case. He also queried the binding aspect, as he was unclear as to whom would the outcome be legally binding?
Councillor Goldson stated that he understood the concerns, as 14 beach huts were potentially left without a site and it was very difficult to make decisions in this respect. However, the current situation was not sustainable and someone needed to be in the middle to mediate. He confirmed that negotiations were the only way forward.
The Chairman stated that the additional 15 minutes had now ended. The Leader proposed that an additional 15 minutes be added to the consideration of this item, which was seconded by Councillor Rivett. Upon being put to the vote it was
RESOLVED
That discussions on this item be extended for a further 15 minutes.
Councillor Pitchers congratulated the Chairman on her election and stated that he understood that mediation was the only way forward, however, he confirmed that the mediator must be qualified to understand the details and technicalities around this matter.
Councillor Byatt asked if there were other options, such as an inquiry, that could be legally binding? He noted that the Local Government Association offered mediation services, which were able to resolve the issues in 90% of cases. He commented that it was important that the way forward in this matter was agreed.
Councillor Rivett stated that there had been a lengthy debate about this matter and any mediation in the future needed to be fair and reasonable.
The amendment, having already been moved by Councillor Deacon and seconded by Councillor Byatt was then put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED
That the proposed amendment to recommendation 5 be
LOST.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw commented that she could not support the proposed recommendations, as she did not feel that the other proposals, such as the niches, had been fully explored. She stated that it was also important to protect the huts and their history on the seafront.
Councillor Wiles stated it was important to find alternative sites for the 14 huts on the promenade. The beach was very exposed to surge events and storms, which could do significant damage. It was important that any new sites being offered for those 14 beach huts were safe and appropriate.
Councillor Blundell spoke movingly of his late wife, who had wanted to see the beach at Felixstowe for one last time, however, she had been unable to due to the beach huts being in the way and blocking the view from the car park. He stated it was important to remember that the promenade and beach were enjoyed by many people, not just the beach hut owners.
Councillor Green reported that the beach huts were used by a wide range of people and the huts were important, emotionally, to many people. She hoped that a way forward could be found and that the huts could remain on the promenade until the conclusion of the Judicial Review.
The Leader stated that all those involved with the beach huts wanted there to be a good outcome, however it was no longer appropriate for the beach huts to remain on the promenade for the reasons outlined during the presentation and discussions. All of the options had been considered in detail, with expert input from engineers and coastal protection officers. It was noted that the recommendations had already been moved and seconded and he then requested that the recommendations be put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED
1. That the Council shares the disappointment expressed by the 44 affected beach hut owners.
2. That the Council acknowledges that coastal erosion is an escalating issue and ongoing risk to our resorts, assets and facilities.
3. That the Council appreciates the hard of work officers to find a solution acceptable to all parties.
4. That the Council recognises the permanent placement of huts on the Promenade will restrict its use by the wider community.
5. That the Council remains willing to engage in mediation regarding new ideas for relocating the 14 huts left without a site.
6. That the Council supports the actions to date and directs that the results of the Judicial Review are reported back to Full Council in due course.
The Chairman took the opportunity to adjourn the meeting for 5 minutes, to allow those in attendance for the Petition item, to vacate the building, from 9.10pm – 9.15pm.