Plans to build 12 beach huts on one of Kent’s most-photographed beauty spots have sparked a fierce public backlash.

Canterbury City Council had an initial bid to build 20 of the wooden shacks in Tankerton, near Whitstable, rejected in September following almost 100 objections.

But the authority has returned with a new proposal for 12 huts on a site further along the picturesque seafront slopes.

The council, which has been hit hard financially by the pandemic, is looking to cash in on the growing staycation market.

But residents have blasted the proposals, fearing the new huts will destroy valuable open space and could spark an increase in anti-social behaviour.

Peers Carter, 75, says he is at the “point of desperation” with the city council, which he accuses of ignoring residents’ concerns and having no “aesthetic taste or respect” for the slopes.

“Again and again, we have to point out that the slopes are a national asset and the original covenant promised there would be no alterations to its space and character,” he said. “Yet the council is always coming up with some new scheme to negate that. It is like the constant torments of Hell.”

The original council plan was to build 20 new huts between two existing rows at Marine Parade.

The new project proposes 12 fronting the beach at Marine Crescent, next to a storage area used by Tankerton Sailing Club.

Resident Gavin Serkin says the area is already “crowded” with beach huts.

“There are so many people vying for space,” he said. “There are dogs, bikes and people trying to use the same promenade, and it is very overcrowded.

“From the environmental aspect, our coastline doesn’t have many green spaces left.

“If you look from Whitstable to Swalecliffe, the majority of the green area that was the Tankerton Slopes is developed and these beach huts have mushroomed over the last couple of decades.”

Keith Bothwell, from the Canterbury Green Party, says members are “most concerned” about the plans.

“These slopes are a precious piece of public open space, of great value to both local people and visitors alike,” he said. “This part of the slopes is the narrowest, so new beach huts here would have the most negative impact on those living in the houses opposite.

“There are plenty of beach huts in the area already, without adding new ones which would only serve the privileged few who can afford the eye-watering cost.”

Tankerton ward councillor Neil Baker was one of many who raised issues about the council’s initial proposal.

He believes the new location is more appropriate, but still has concerns.

“The Marine Crescent stretch of the slopes, being outside the Tankerton Ward and of a slightly detached nature compared to Marine Parade, does have its own charm and need for attention,” he said.

“It has suffered from an increased amount of anti-social behaviour, in numerous forms, recently and quite aside from this beach hut application, there are issues that need attention.

“On the planning application, while I remain certain this site is better than the recently rejected one between existing huts to the west, there are obvious issues with regard to the amenity open land provides.

“Parking is already well beyond capacity for much of a year, and it’s rare to walk along the road without witnessing pavement and verge parking when the sun is shining.”

If given the green light, the city council would build the huts and sell them at the market rate.

And with more than 1,000 people on a waiting list to snap one up, it will have no shortage of willing buyers.

Two privately-owned beach huts in Tankerton have recently been marketed for £36,000 and £45,000 respectively.

There are currently 650 beach huts across the district on sites managed by the city council.

Plans were approved in September to build 94 more across two plots in Herne Bay.

Arguing its case for the new huts in Tankerton, the council says they will be near existing facilities, including water standpipes and public toilets, and not in any special ‘designated’ area.

Canterbury council spokesman Rob Davies said: “We are in the consultation phase for this application, public comments are welcome and all views will be taken into account at the planning committee.”

No levelling or reprofiling of the site is proposed.

To view and comment on the application, visit the city council’s planning portal and search 21/02729.