Future looks bleak if seaside plan goes ahead

THE plan that Mr Wall has devised to ‘secure’ the future of the harbour is nothing more than an opportunist attempt to secure the continued development of the land owned by the BHFS.

If Mr Wall is allowed to get away with the preposterous claim that the harbour needs to be funded from subsidies derived from the sale and development of this land then the future of Beadnell as a coastal village looks very bleak indeed.

His idea, supported by the planning department, provides the perfect mechanism to allow the continued creeping development of Beadnell’s protected coastal land.

With a planning department that has a predisposition to favour development it will not be too long before the village will be faced with yet another fight to resist a further attempt to develop more of Beadnell’s coastal land.

This to provide the ever-increasing subsidy required as fishing activity continues its inexorable decline.

The same bogus excuse to develop will no doubt be made again but a precedent to do this will now have already been established.

Mr Wall talks of the importance of the harbour for tourism. But harbours are only of interest if they are centres of boat activity. His plans prevent such activity.

The harbour is destined to become a useable but unused facility. The argument about the ability or otherwise of the harbour to sustain itself should have been settled more than two years ago and could even now be settled if Mr Wall would allow the spare capacity in the harbour to be utilised.

At the start of the planning process the planning department should have insisted that the claim that the harbour is incapable of sustaining itself should have been put to the test.

That it did not do this and it continues to support development on the basis of a claim that is not established fact raises very serious questions about its relationship with the developers or its competence.

The planning department’s continued acceptance of the unsubstantiated claim that the harbour is incapable of sustaining itself and its support for a bogus exceptional case to develop is deplorable and destroys the integrity of the planning process.

Mr G Wilde,

Harbour Road,