It is not often that common-sense prevails at EDDC so we should celebrate it when it does. Last week EDDC withdrew their planning application for all year round siting of beach huts on Budleigh beach. This may seem a rather parochial matter and had the cabinet listened to ward councillors and common-sense prevailed from the start, EDDC would not have suffered a series of damaging blows to its reputation for competence and there would be no story to tell. But it didn’t and there is plenty to tell.

Ever since beach huts replaced bathing machines in Budleigh they have been overwintered in storage to preserve them from the elements. Last year, however, following a cabinet decision, EDDC wrote to beach hut owners saying they could leave them in place all year round. The claim was that ten hut owners had made a request to do so but, since owners weren’t consulted (see below), many think it was just an excuse to hike up the annual rent by around 50%, netting a mere £20K.

The Town Council, aware of the winter storms that have periodically scoured the beach under the beach hut sites, opposed the idea. The really bad storms of 1950, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 2000 are well recorded in photos, videos and newspaper cuttings from the Journal and have passed into local folklore. The question of planning permission was also raised. Council members recalled that EDDC had required a fisherman to make a full planning application to replace his fishing hut but was apparently giving a free pass to bathing hut owners.

Natural England pointed out that since the site was an SSSI, EDDC could not claim permitted delegated authority to allow the change and planning permission or permissions would be needed.

For over a year EDDC allowed this “planning anomaly” to run, leases to be issued, and the beach huts to stand until six weeks ago when a planning application was submitted for all year siting for 61 EDDC and 94 privately owned huts.

EDDC commissioned a flood risk assessment from consultants which contained the following disclaimer:

“This report gives estimates of likely flood depth, but does not attempt to quantify risk from waves or storm surges. Flooding from the sea is analysed solely on modelled extreme water levels which are assumed as calm.”

However, the assessment concluded that the permanent retention of beach huts was acceptable.

WHAT NO WAVES OR STORMS ON A BEACH!!!!!

This flood risk assessment was dated January. In the first week of February the waves from a combination of spring tides, a deep depression and SSE gale force winds overturned and smashed many of the huts at the western bathing station. A small turn of the compass and the gabions underlying the eastern bathing station would have been ripped open as they last were in the storms of both 1989 and 1990.

Despite this, EDDC continued preparing the planning application which it submitted at the end of March (including specifying a maximum size of beach hut smaller than those redeployed from Exmouth a few years ago!).

The Environment Agency (EA) made its formal comment with the benefit of hindsight in May:

“It is clear that to site beach huts permanently on the beach will significantly increase the likelihood that they will be damaged in winter storms. Given that; a) sea levels are rising and are predicted to rise at an increasing rate; b) that such storms are predicted to increase both in terms of wind speed and wave height (NPPF, Table 5) we recommend that this proposal be refused on the grounds that is not safe, sustainable and puts people and property increasingly and unnecessarily at risk.”

No doubt the EA don’t want to pick up the bill for more irresponsible EDDC decisions, see the article posted here on May 23 entitled: “Environment Agency picks up the tab for EDDC blunder”.

The views of the majority of beach hut owners, especially the local ones, are summed up by the following letter of objection by Ray and Judith Franklin, published on the planning web site:

“……We were dismayed that there was no consultation whatsoever regarding this move. We now understand that a planning application is needed. Surely this will result in additional costs to the council tax payers?

The rent has increased by £242.40 per annum (excl VAT) but we have enjoyed no additional benefit. In fact, ourselves and several of our neighbours were unable to gain access to the huts due to swelling of the timbers and rusting of the locks. Some of our neighbours forced open the doors but then found they were unable to close them. We appreciate that it was a particularly wet winter but these problems would happen during any winter.

………..Speaking with other beach hut owners and renters we have found only one or two who are in support of this ill-thought out and undemocratic move.”

Could this be Ray Franklin one time deputy leader to Sarah Randall Johnson? If so, then we can all think of many more examples of ill-thought out and undemocratic decisions made by him and cabinet members against the wishes of the people of East Devon.  Case of the pot and the kettle?

We will file this as an example of an omnishambles.