Is the beach not publicly owned?
The public have freely accessed and used the beach for many many years and it forms a natural continuation of the City Council owned town beach. However Fraser Beach is no longer in public hands and thus it is at risk. Here’s why.
Way back in 1788 the Admiralty purchased the beach & surrounding land. This passed, over time, to the War Dept and then to the MoD Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). In 2001 the government created a new company called QinetiQ, placing in it 75% of DERA’s assets which included Fraser Range and Fraser Beach. The new company was created specifically for a public private partnership and in 2002 the Amercian investment group Carlyle bought a 37.5% share. This purchase and the subsequent flotation of the company on the stock market in 2006 proved quite controversial. Below you can read the MoD National Archive version of events and the Guardian newspaper version of events.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/10/whitehall.defence
Meanwhile, on the ground (or rather, on the beach) nothing really changed during all this corporate change and the public and QinetiQ site personnel co-existed as their predecessors had done for so many years. But behind the scenes the Company had other ideas…
QinetiQ’s planning application
In 2005 the soon-to-be floated QinetiQ submitted an outline planning application to build 130 flats in 3 large blocks up to 7 storeys high directly overlooking the beach (which continued to be used by the public). Although QinetiQ owned the beach they left it outside the red line of the planning application site, possibly to try and discourage the local planning authority (Portsmouth City Council) from imposing any conditions ensuring it’s continued use by the public.
Despite several objections from the public council officers opted to rely on QinetiQ’s verbal assurance only that the beach would remain open to the public. The scheme was recommended for approval and on 30 November 2005 the City Council planning committee duly resolved (by a Chair’s casting vote) to grant outline planning permission subject to the completion of a planning agreement (otherwise known as a s.106 agreement). To date that agreement has never been signed and thus there is no planning consent. Furthermore various aspects of the Environmental Statement) submitted by QinetiQ in support of the 2005 application are now in doubt to the extent that it is highly questionable whether the application should ever have been heard by the planning committee.
Somewhat belatedly Portsmouth City Council have recognised the application’s shortcomings (particularly in relation to important breeding bird surveys) and on 9th August 2010 issued a letter to QinetiQ, which you can see by clicking on the pdf document below. The letter leaves no doubt that the application must be overhauled and reconsidered by the planning committee at a future date. This is very significant because not only have local policies changed on things such as tall buildings and flood protection but also central government has in effect abandoned regional housing targets. One of the key drivers behind Portsmouth’s controversial 2005 resolution was almost certainly housing targets.
Planning Services letter to QinetiQ dated 9 August 2010
If you would like to read the 2005 officers report you can find it here (see pages 12-27):
http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/dc20051130r.pdf
Extracted from the officer's report (Portsmouth City Council)
If you would like to look at the original planning application you can find it here:
If you would like to know more about the breeding bird survey controversy please contact us (there’s lots more detail!) -here’s a link to UE Associates report - UE-0048_Fraser_QinetiQ_Birds_4_20109NDnp (thanks to Portsmouth City Council for giving their permission)
So what’s this in the newspapers about a Deed and public access to the beach?
You may have read in the Portsmouth News and elsewhere that QinetiQ recently sought to exclude the public (on 3 occasions in March and May 2010) from the beach, seemingly as part of an ongoing row with the council about the wording of a Deed linked to the planning application. Understandably, local residents (& other stakeholders) weren’t too impressed with seeing security guards cordoning off an open beach and telling all-comers to keep off. In fact residents were incensed! For instance, at a packed meeting (27 May 2010) of the Eastney Neighbourhood Forum a group of local residents, many of whom have used the beach for many years without hindrance, voted unananimously in favour of the registering of Fraser Beach as a Village Green to protect it from any restrictions.
Both QinetiQ and the City solicitor argued at the time that the Deed (which gives QinetiQ greater rights of way over the site access road owned by the Council) was necessary to allow QinetiQ to comply with the conditions of the draft planning consent. The public have long argued that the Deed is premature as there is no planning consent and many local councillors also had their doubts. However the Council executive bowed to pressure and the Deed was signed on 20th August 2010.
In its defence the Council argues that the Deed protects public access to the beach. Not so. Read on to find out why…
Why the Deed fails to adequately protect public access to the beach
As ever the devil is in the detail…so bear with us and read on !
The “Deed” is a Deed of Release 
and Grant of Easement. In simple terms it grants QinetiQ new easement rights over an area of the existing Fort Cumberland open space (the Site of Important Nature Conservation green space to the east of the Fraser Range access road). This is so that existing access rights to Fraser Range can be widened for the proposed residential scheme . In return, amongst other things, QinetiQ undertakes to dedicate Fraser Beach as access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (known affectionately as CROW) – but only when the proposed residential scheme is consented, built and occupied.
At present the scheme does not yet have planning consent so the date of construction and occupation are unknown and uncertain. Indeed it may never happen. There is a mechanism in the Deed which seeks to prevent QinetiQ from denying the public access to the beach in the intervening period – which could be months or years. However, the problem with this clause is that it is not sufficiently robust. Why?
Well, there are circumstances in which QinetiQ or their successors in title can close the beach in this intervening period without being subject to any test of reasonableness.
Firstly they can close the beach for reasons of health and safety. Whilst they have a duty to first seek the advice of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) before closure and consider any advice received from HSE there is no obligation to act on that advice and certainly no obligation whatsoever to consult the Council or local community.
Secondly they can close the beach for the purpose of “preventing the commission of criminal offences”. Again whilst they have a duty to seek the advice of the Hampshire Constabulary before closure and consider any advice received there is no obligation to act on that advice and certainly no obligation whatsoever to consult the Council or local community.
“Preventing the commission of criminal offences” could be wide ranging in theory and include the threat of break-ins (although Fraser Range is run-down anyway) and the risk of espionage (although QinetiQ don’t actively use the buildings).
QinetiQ have already sought to exclude the public from the beach on 3 occasions in 2010 and it appears that they also tried unsuccessfully to include a clause in the Deed giving them the right to specifically exclude naturists from the beach at their discretion.
The great concern is therefore that QinetiQ or a subsequent owner of Fraser Range could “conveniently” close the beach on safety or security grounds for an unspecified period when there is no genuine problem.
The purpose of the Village Green application is to properly protect the beach once and for all (as it is an offence under law to prevent public access to a village green).
