THE secretary of the Fisherman’s Society Mr Wall is now falsely making the claim that the fishing activity at The Haven and White Rock sites was done on an industrial scale.
He uses the word industrial to imply that these sites are contaminated and degraded. They are not.
Yes, this land has a long and eventful history.
It has been worked off, worked on, lived off and played on and no doubt in the past has been fought on and for.
The fight is now to retain this land as it is – undeveloped coastal land at the heart of Beadnell – it carries on it a record of man’s interaction with it that stretches back centuries.
Beadnell is here because of what this coast offered, an attractive shoreline, relatively safe coastal waters abundant in seafood and coastal land rich in resources.
This land on which Beadnell evolved retains features of its rich heritage and this along with the harbour, is the very essence of what Beadnell is.
It provides a buffer to ensure that the coastline maintains its solitude and serenity and provides access to these shorelines along paths which have unobstructed views.
It attracts visitors – birdwatchers, sea anglers, divers, photographers, ramblers etc.
The land provides a rich habitat for flora and fauna, areas on which family activities can take place and provides the only views Beadnell has to the Farne Islands.
It can be enjoyed by all regardless of age or physical ability. Beadnell would be impoverished were it to lose any of it.
Mr Wall’s insatiable interest is in putting deals together and making money.
His claim that this land is contaminated is false. His claim that the development of this land is the only way to fund the harbour has not been proved – it is the only solution that he will consider and his estimated cost for harbour maintenance has not been independently verified.
It is alarming that approval to build on protected coastline can be granted on these uncorroborated claims.
Mr Wall has wasted a great deal of time and effort trying to convince all of the benefits that his proposals will bring to Beadnell.
This time and effort could have been used to draw on the good will of the people, who have shown themselves willing to give support to the harbour when it has been in trouble.
It is ironic that if Mr Wall gets his way, those who have shown such support will be rewarded with a wallscape and degraded amenities, while the descendants of the fishing families will lose use of the land gifted by Sir John Craster – the land of such importance to their ancestors.
Mr Wall’s proposals are detrimental to all and will damage tourism – so important to Beadnell and Northumberland.
It is incomprehensible why the planning department has given assistance to these proposals as tourism provides more than £700million per year to Northumberland’s economy.
The harbour and coastline together define Beadnell.
Choice of one over the other is akin to the choice of having the air we breathe or the food we eat.
It is clear that Mr Wall is the problem.
Take him out of the equation and a solution to funding the harbour would be found beneficial to all except of course Mr Wall and his business associates.
The animosity he speaks of would disappear and harmony would be restored.