AS a resident of Beadnell for 26 years, growing up here since the age of one, I feel it’s about time I made a contribution after reading numerous letters in the Gazette, many of which I agree with.
Beadnell is no longer a quaint fishing village on the North East coast. Where is it’s own mark now?
More and more houses are being built but where is the history and heritage that is supposed to be kept at the same time?
We keep being told that the only way to keep Beadnell’s history, ie the harbour, is to build houses as it’s the only way to receive money back into the community.
For generations, the harbour has been maintained and the protected land has remained untouched. So why should it be any different now?
In 1947, the harbour was donated to the fishermen by Sir John Craster. It was maintained by income, events and villagers’ contributions.
In 1969, a pleasure boat company didn’t get their way to take it over and in 1998, the Harbour in Trouble fund raised money through events and support to repair the south wall, which had collapsed.
Why can’t land be used as heritage sites not building sites? Fund-raising and support has worked in the past and it still can.
The land at the Haven site would be ideal to restore fishermen’s huts and cobles, with information boards/points of interest.
The grassed area opposite the chip shop would be great as a pay-and-display car park as there is not enough parking in the village and at the height of summer, cars are parked anywhere and everywhere, even outside your own home. Why should we have to have more and more houses as a solution to everything? In my eyes, it is not a solution but just another big headache.
Over half of the houses in this village are unoccupied from October to April as they are holiday lets or second homes owned by people from Newcastle and surrounding cities/towns.
It’s those people who would like to see more houses here, but Beadnell isn’t a town or city like Newcastle etc with buildings in every available space. We are a small village with a history to share, apparently. Well, I don’t see any of the history blotting out the landscape.
I agree with the proposal of village greens. John Wall may have said that the land is too big for that and it can serve several purposes but that to me just sounds as though houses and building have to be at the forefront of any plans. After all, he isn’t going to gain if it’s just a piece of grass area.
The people with pound signs in their eyes have no connection here. They haven’t grown up here to feel strongly about keeping history and charm.
You wouldn’t see buildings going up overnight, for example, on Holy Island to be able to keep what little history and heritage they have left. What are the locals getting? Nothing as of yet. Let’s hope people aren’t pressured into thinking that the only way forward is yet more houses.
Name and address supplied