A Monthly Publication

By John Maiden

Newsletter readers might be interested in Cllr Daubney's response to a ten-part question, prompted by his decision to vary the terms of the Pier Lease in favour of a Council tenant - the one who may now pay just £1 per annum for a prime site on The Green for the next 858 years, without ever having to build or maintain a Pier!

              If this extract from the minutes of a borough council meeting held on 26th November 2009 is an example of what the borough council means by the slogan: "Keep Norfolk Local" perhaps it really is time for one council to serve the whole of Norfolk, with more responsibility devolved to genuinely "local" town and parish councils...

C52: PETITIONS AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS  

The Mayor invited Mr J Maiden to the table to ask his questions of Council as follows: 

“Have members of the Borough Council been made aware of the full implications of the Deed of Variation executed on their behalf by the Legal Services Manager on 14th October 2009? 

   Will the Leader of the Council explain why the local press was given false information about this Deed, which suggested that the document had been signed and sealed in August and would, in due course, be approved by the High Court? 

   Does the Chief Executive realise that the 999-year Lease for Hunstanton Pier is for a Pier and not just for the land on which the Pier was erected? 

   If not, how does he explain the Repairing Covenant, which caused the Pier Tenant to ask the Council, in its capacity as Pier Landlord, to relieve him of the duty imposed on him by the Repairing Covenant to maintain the Pier in good condition? 

   Why did the Council abandon its 2007 manifesto commitment to reinstate Hunstanton Pier as part of the proposed regeneration of the seafront.? 

Does the Council realise that the land subject to the Pier Lease comprises the land which is covered and occupied by the Pier and for ten yards in all directions beyond the land covered and occupied by the Pier? 

Since there is no Pier, does the Council accept the fact that the Pier Lease is frustrated and provides no justification for the continuing presence of a non-pier structure on The Green at Hunstanton? 

In April 2009 I made an application to register The Green as a Town Green, in order to reinforce a legally binding Covenant, imposed in 1955, intended to prohibit the erection of any building on The Green, other than a Pier entrance. The Borough Council objects to registration. Is this because it is in breach of the Covenant by permitting the presence of a non-pier building on The Green? 

Our Member of Parliament is in the process of arranging a meeting with a Minister to examine the credentials of an entity claiming to be the Hunstanton Pier Company (HPC).  What steps has the Council taken to ensure that the person signing a legal document on behalf of the HPC is acting in accordance with the Charter of that Company, which was imposed by an Act of Parliament? 

In the spirit of keeping Norfolk Local, is the Council prepared to enter into discussions with those of us in the Hunstanton area in order to resolve this situation in the public interest, or must we take the case to Court? “ 

In response, Councillor Daubney made the following statement: 

“Mr Maiden, thank you for once again bringing to the attention of the Council your continuing crusade to achieve demolition and removal of the Pier Entertainment Centre situated on the Green in Hunstanton.  

  The Borough Council has, as you say executed a Deed of Variation with the Hunstanton Pier Company.  I am only too aware that you vehemently opposed this course of action. 

Council officers have spent many hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours dealing with the hundreds of emails which you and your fellow campaigners have sent to the Council in pursuit of your aims. 

It is time for all of us who are concerned about the well being of Hunstanton to put the past behind us and work together to achieve a prosperous and successful future for the town.  Hunstanton has enjoyed one of its busiest seasons for many years in 2009.  We have an excellent master plan in the Hunstanton Regeneration Plan.  We also have some difficult issues to tackle and address, including, of course, the future of the Princess Theatre. 

I would encourage the Civic Society to set aside its grievances about this one single building and work with the Borough Council to help us to implement the Hunstanton Regeneration Programme. 

With respect to your list of questions in light of the content of the final paragraph of your email addressed to the Councils Freedom of Information Officer, dated 24 November, in which you refer to preparation for a Judicial Review against this Council, it would not be appropriate to engage in a debate or discussion with you here this evening.” 

Mr Maiden commented that he did not feel his questions had been answered and that he was sad that the Civic Society was not playing a part in the Hunstanton Regeneration Group, to which Councillor Daubney responded that he would be pleased to include them in the Partnership, but not to discuss their single issue.