MR Wall’s comment in the Gazette on February 23, that the ‘long-standing residents of the village want to protect and maintain the harbour forever’, implies that this is all that they want.
This may be true for his small caucus of associates that he represents. That he says this, on behalf of other than this small minority, shows how out of touch with reality he is.
It is also an indication of his isolation that he knows so little about the opinions of the many that he is always claiming to speak on behalf of.
The overwhelming majority, be they full-time residents, second-home owners or owners of caravans, as well as visitors to Beadnell, all share an interest in not just preserving the long-term future of the harbour, but also in preserving the coastal land along with its history, heritage and biodiversity.
They do not want to sacrifice this land to line the pockets of developers and provide Mr Wall with a house on the White Rock site.
Mr Wall makes another comment implying that it is only second-home owners that value Beadnell’s sea views.
This is a bit rich coming from the man who intends to sacrifice the sea views that are currently available and valued by everyone, so that he can secure for a few wealthy individuals invaluable sea views that will then be denied to all others.
I cannot help but think that the remaining members of the fishing community must cringe with embarrassment when he speaks presumably on their behalf about ‘the depth and history of a fishing heritage which spans many generations’.
How he dare make such a comment about that which, in my opinion, he is determined to destroy is inconceivable – that is unless he does not really mean what he says.
He then mentions ‘the real people who have held a dignified silence throughout the debate’. Their silence can be explained by their reluctance to be seen to argue in favour of the destruction of the history and heritage of their own community.
To do this is the antithesis of dignified behaviour and would be abhorrent to those who really treasure the memory of their ancestors.
Perhaps someone from the Fisherman’s Society would break this dignified silence to explain how they can justify the destruction of this history and heritage before having attempted to make a financial success of the harbour by making available its spare capacity to those who are prepared to pay to use it.
The planning department should also give its own explanation for recommending this development.