JANICE HENSHALL of Wood Lane, Kingswear, writes:

Reference letters from Cllr Trevorrow and Paul Folea, at the recent council meeting when Cllr Trevorrow announced that he had written a letter to the Chronicle, I assumed he was writing in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the council as the tone of his letter might seem to suggest.

Cllr Trevorrow states the majority of council members are in favour of village green registration neglecting to point out that those opposed like myself are from local families established for over 100 years.

Those in favour, the majority having arrived in more recent times, in most cases have never used Lighthouse beach and know nothing of its background or history.

I, however, write this letter as a long-term resident of Kingswear whose family has lived here for three generations.

As such, I am aware of the historical and factual background to the usage of Lighthouse beach and so wish to correct certain of the inaccuracies in Cllr Trevorrow's letter.

I am one of those locals that Cllr Trevorrow refers to that learnt to swim on Lighthouse beach and I remember my grandfather telling me it was private, although I was unaware of the extent of this, believing the land between the high water mark at the bottom of the steps and the low water mark to be Crown property.

It was only when I became a councillor in 1991 that I learnt that this had been sold in 1861 by the Duchy estates to the original purchaser. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the high water mark is at the bottom of the steps where the footpath ends.

I am sure that Devon County Council is more than aware of this fact, indeed such was its advice to me during that time, 1991-5, when as a member of the praish council I acted as co-ordinator of the Parish Paths Partnership and during the review of the Definitive Map the county council was quick to dismiss an application to register a path across the beach, so I do wonder how a village green can exist when a footpath cannot.

I am bound to say the county council did a good job of stewardship between landowners and users' concerns. It is because of my involvement at this time that I am required to give evidence for David Southwick and confirm events which occurred.

As a local resident, I have discussed with Mr Southwick the terms upon which he would be prepared to reopen his beach once his building works on the adjoining beach have been finished.

I did not find Mr Southwick's terms restrictive. While I was not in agreement with every one of his proposals, I did not feel Mr Southwick was being unreasonable for the sake of it but had real and understandable concerns which on past experience in many respects I share.

I feel confident that if the council withdrew its application to register the beach as a village green then a successful negotiation to reopen the beach could be concluded with Mr Southwick now.

I have lived here for so long that I remember the days before Mr Southwick started his building works when he raised the level of the beach with the spoil from his adjoining building site.

Mr Southwick has given an undertaking to Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority to reinstate the beach back to its former lower level on the conclusion of his building works. The beach will then disappear at high water.

The likely costs for solicitors and barristers' fees, at around £250 per hour for the pre-inquiry and four-day public inquiry, plus necessary preparation and not to mention costs of travel and accommodation, will I feel all add up to a not inconsiderable amount of money.

I would question the advisability of pursuing this course of action for anything less than a guaranteed favourable outcome.

With regard to Mr Folca's letter that appeared in the Chronicle on the same day.

The Newhaven case to which he refers was overturned by Mr Justice Ouseley last Wednesday and the application to register a beach there as a village green has failed.

In that case the tide only covered 42 per cent of the beach and not a 100 per cent, as Lighthouse beach will be once reinstated to the level to which Mr Southwick is obliged to restore it.

This is one of several recent cases when a village green case been quashed by the courts.

Also on March 19, the Court of Appeal has given judgement confirming that where an owner puts up signs closing a beach and people ignore those signs and the owner protests then such user is not 'as of right' which is one of the necessary requirements to be successful in a village green application.

As far as I am aware Mr Southwick closed the beach in 1999 and put up signs.

I have real concerns that the facts of this matter are being obscured in order to mislead residents regarding the likelihood of a successful outcome.