Secretary of State may have final say on Humberston Fitties 50-week lease issue
CAMPAIGNERS who want to stay on the Humberston Fitties for 50 weeks of the year fought passionately at the landmark hearing to discuss their future – but warnings from the Environment Agency have cast doubt over it going their way.
Addressing North East Lincolnshire Council's Humberston Fitties Select Committee at Cleethorpes Town Hall yesterday, Fitties Owners Residents' Association Bungalows (FORAB) argued extending their time allowed on the holiday park from 44 weeks to 50 weeks would not only benefit chalet owners but the whole of Cleethorpes by utilising the Fitties' unique heritage as a tourist attraction for the resort.
Members also dismissed the Environment Agency's evidence that the Fitties is at a "high risk" of flooding.
As reported, 75 per cent of the 320 chalet owners voted in favour of extending the current 44 weeks occupancy to 50 weeks in a referendum by NELC last year.
MAYFAIR ESTATE AGENTS
IF WE CANNOT FIND YOU A TENANT WITHIN ONE MONTH WE WILL FIND YOU ONE FOR FREE, YES FREE, YOU WILL PAY NO FEES.
Terms: TERMS & CONDITIONS APPLY.
Contact: 01472 355 553
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
But at yesterday's hearing, the Environment Agency said it would not back the application due to the Fitties' one in 75 years risk of flooding, made more severe by the fragile infrastructure of the park.
Coastal advisor for the EA, Mark Robinson, said: "If an application to build a holiday park here was made in this day and age, especially looking at the types of units that would be there, we would simply say it was not a good idea.
"Given the facts presented today and what is stated in national government planning policy framework, we think the risk will increase year on year. There is uncertainty about the long term future and therefore we would not support the application to extend the occupancy."
The Fitties is at risk of flooding due to the risk of tidal surges and storms during January and February when the Fitties is closed after 4pm.
But FORAB disputes the EA's scientific findings and at the meeting quoted findings from their independent study by Three Counties Risk Assessment, which put them at a 1 in 1,000 years chance of flooding.
Chairman Paul Harwood said: "Sea levels may or may not rise in the future but the reality is nobody knows for certain. While any risk may be argued possible, it cannot be argued predictable with any degree of accuracy or confidence.
"The figures are just not sufficiently reliable to make an informed judgement with any degree of confidence. No one knows the exact likelihood of flooding or even if the Fitties will ever flood. But what we can say is if a proper flood evacuation scheme was in place there would be absolutely no risk to life at all."
The EA's refusal was backed by North East Lincolnshire planning officer, Jonathan Cadd, who stated without the approval of the EA, they would have to put the final decision to the secretary of state.
He said: "We consider a cautioned approach in terms of how we look at flood risk and would be guided by the EA. We would probably recommend refusal."
The second day of the two-day hearing will include a site visit. The select committee will then submit their recommendations to Cabinet.
Comments
by Fittie-Fan
Saturday, December 22 2012, 8:02PM
“parra_handy....
I completely agree with your well reseached blog - above
I would add that recent attempts to reinforce the flood barrier with palin fencing has added a very unsightly and dangerous feature
This is to be viewed at the path (opposite chalet 122) the beach below water line has had a fence which was erected in December 2012 These posts were driven half a meter into what is wet sand!
Anyone who has built a sandcastle and watched as the sea reached the castle will know the result!
Also, below the high tide line the beach is littered with bricks - rocks - concrete and rusting wire.
These hazards are not visible at high tide and chidren running into the sea will be injured by these dangerous items
THEY MUST BE REMOVED as a matter of urgency
The beach must be made safe for all
The fence at the top of the path was erected with no planning application and many have simply made a path around and go down a steep, unsafe path to the beach
I expect some visits to hospital and injury claims to be made soon”
by jack_knife
Friday, November 02 2012, 7:42PM
“Malcolm_ex,
How many times do you need tell, I am not "warrior." You need help for your paranoia.
As I've told you before, I will have all of your posts removed where you wrongly insist in naming me as "warrior."
I'm pleased the someone has had your post removed, otherwise I would have, but I have been out all day. So thank you to those people.”
by jack_knife
Friday, November 02 2012, 7:23PM
“Fitties1,
Nothing to do with me, I've been out all day.
Malcolm_X
Same answer as above.
But it shows just what everyone thinks of you. So now just go away, you are not wanted.”
by para_handy
Friday, November 02 2012, 7:05PM
“http://tinyurl.com/amh8nr2
http://tinyurl.com/b6m4orf"”
by para_handy
Friday, November 02 2012, 7:04PM
“"Most people have seen the tragedy unfolding on the US seaboard following the massive tidal surge. Those with their heads buried in the Fitties sandhills deny any flood risk and say it will never happen here. Daily the images and sad events get worse. Today BBC1 news had coverage of many chalet type dwellings completely demolished by the tidal surge.
EVERY COUNCILLOR, EVERY COUNCIL OFFICER, EVERY FITTIES HOLIDAY CAMPER NOW HAS SEEN GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF UTTER DEVASTATION CAUSED BY "SANDY." EVERYBODY NOW HAS NO DOUBT JUST WHAT A TIDAL SURGE IS CAPABLE OF.
THIS RAMSHACKLE AND MOTLEY COLLECTION OF FRAGILE TIMBER CHALETS BUILT ON A DEPRESSED COASTAL MARSH LAND IS NOT FIT FOR HABITATION IN THE STORM SEASON.
ANY COUNCILLOR OR OFFICER WHO VOTES FOR EXTENDED HABITATION IS GUILTY OF RISKING LOSS OF LIFE SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE US. IT'S NOT JUST VOTES BUT NAMED INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL HAVE ANY DISASTER ON THEIR HANDS ALONE. THE LITIGATION EXPERTS AND LEGAL COMPENSATION EXPERTS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY. TO ALLOW OCCUPATION IN THE WINTER PERIOD WILL BE LEGALLY PROVEN TO BE NEGLIGENCE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AND DEMONSTRATE DELIBERATE IGNORACE TOWARD MANIFOLD EXPERT ADVICE.
It is time for this money wasting farce to end, it is time for the closed season to be increased not reduced. It is time for those persistent lease breakers to return to their residential address's and vacate their holiday homes for most of the winter period. THE LEASE'S WANT REVISING TO A MUCH LONGER CLOSED SEASON TO REFLECT THE FLOOD RISK PERIOD.
IGNORING THE STORM SURGE RISK, HOW CAN ANY COUNCILLOR DEAL WITH "HOLIDAY" RESIDENTS WHO OPENLY ABUSE THE EXISTING LEASE BY ILLEGALLY STAYING OVERNIGHT IN THE CLOSED PERIOD.........DO COUNCILLORS REALLY BELIEVE PROVEN LEASEBREAKERS WILL RESPECT ANY PERIOD OFFERED TO THEM.......... HISTORICALLY THE LEASE'S HAVE BEEN BROKEN FOR YEARS AND YEARS..... THE NE£C SHOULD INCREASE THE CLOSED PERIOD, MAKE THE CAMP SECURE AGAINST COVERT OCCUPATION, AND EVICT THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO INSULT THE COUNCIL WITH CONTEMPTUOUS OCCUPATION."”
by Fitties1
Friday, November 02 2012, 4:06PM
“Jack Knife
-50.......that must be a record
How do you feel being a record breaker
PS I haven't had any posts removed. I want the opposite. I want everyone to see these comments.”
by Fitties1
Thursday, November 01 2012, 12:18PM
“Peter
Google it...........you seem to enjoy doing that
Its there if you want to find it”
by jack_knife
Wednesday, October 31 2012, 12:01PM
“Fitties1,
So, that's the best you can do, is it? You ARE a waste of space.
Asking why do you want to stay for 50 weeks instead of 44 weeks is NOT a silly comment, you silly boy. The silly thing is, you don't have a sensible answer.
You still haven't come up with a good reason of why you and the other interlopers want to extend the lease that you all signed. Why, because you haven't got one!
Of course, the only fool on this site is YOU.”
by para_handy
Wednesday, October 31 2012, 11:55AM
“Could Fitties1 give hard evidence to substantiate his claim that Cleethorpes has a higher chance of flooding than the saltmarsh area?
NO RESPONSE !”
by para_handy
Wednesday, October 31 2012, 11:54AM
“Fitties_1,
you seem to have avoided my "silly comments" too, perhaps you are staring truth in the face:
"Fitties_1, my point is new generations have never seen the aftermath of 1953 and so may be complacent about large magnitude weather events...remember 1987?
http://tinyurl.com/h29j
These weather events have and will continue, and if you believe in the Anthropogenic propaganda, they may get more severe and increase in numbers!
•Hurricane force winds blew down more trees in Scotland than were normally felled in a year.
•From Yorkshire to the Thames Estuary, coastal defences were pounded by the sea and gave way under the onslaught.
All day on 31 January, Force 10/11 winds (Hurricanes are usually rated around force 12), blew from the north over western parts of the North Sea. They drove water south, and generated waves more than eight metres high. The surge originated in the waters off the north-east coast of Scotland and was amplified as it travelled first southwards along the eastern coasts of Scotland and England
http://tinyurl.com/d8hvgfy
Storm surges in the southern North Sea pose a complex, persistent and perhaps growing threat to the surrounding coastline of NW Europe. In the UK, more than one million properties are at risk from sea and tidal flooding, corresponding to roughly five percent of the population (Jorissen et al., 2000).
http://tinyurl.com/8wymo3j
Although the Rotterdam Barrier and Eastern Scheldt Barrier were designed for a lifetime of 200 years, accounting for 50âÂÂcm of sea-level rise, many of the reinforcements and extensions to the line of flood defence put in place in the UK after 1953 will approach the end of their design life over the next decade (Select Committee on Agriculture 1998).
http://tinyurl.com/9opgpkm"”