Campaigners against the controversial sale of a plot of seafront land have given Canterbury City Council once last chance to avoid a court challenge.

The Oval Chalet Preservation Community Group (OCPC) and the Whitstable Society have joined forces, threatening the council with legal action after it sold land in Sea Street to developers for £150,000 - a figure they claim was far below its value.

The groups have instructed a firm of solicitors - Richard Buxton - to challenge the council’s decision to sell to Sea Street Developments Ltd in December 2014.

Whitstable Society president Angela Boddy sent a letter to all councillors this week expressing regret that both her group and OCPC will have to fight the city council in court.

The letter reads: "On behalf of the community, we sincerely regret that we must continue our legal action for judicial review against CCC.

"This is necessary given that CCC does not appear to be taking the numerous errors and shortcomings that have occurred in the sale process of the Oval seriously, and does not seem to want to put matters right."

The warning follows a pre-action protocol letter which was sent to the council last month, setting out the grounds on which the campaigners' lawyers believe a judge would declare the contract void.

"This is necessary given that CCC does not appear to be taking the numerous errors and shortcomings that have occurred in the sale process of the Oval seriously..." - Angela Boddy, The Whitstable Society

But a response to the legal document was not warmly received by campaigners who claim that no documentation relating to the Oval Chalet site since 1946 has been disclosed.

This has convinced campaigners that there are no relevant documents allowing the council to defend the claim for a judicial review, which is now being prepared by a specialist barrister for the High Court’s attention.

Mrs Boddy's letter, on behalf of the Whitstable Society and OCPC, gives the council one final chance to consider its position carefully before committing to a course of action in the courts which they claim will be extremely expensive, wasteful of tax payers' money and embarrassing.

She said: "The community expresses its deep dismay about CCC's response to the legal letter and we are giving CCC a final chance to change its approach to this illicit land sale before legal costs start to rise faster and the matter moves to the High Court.”

The council's head of legal services,Sarah Bowman, has also written to councillors about the mounting legal costs of defending CCC’s handling of the sale, which she estimates will soon exceed £20,000.

The amount of council staff time spent on the matter has already hit 630 hours.