The boss of the Whitstable Oyster Company has urged campaigners to end what he describes as a “senseless” battle to curtail the firm’s harvesting operations.

An exasperated James Green – who heads the famous 231-year-old business – says too much public money has been wasted on attempts to dismantle its controversial offshore farm.

He spoke out after overcoming the latest obstacle in a long-running planning row concerning the safety and appearance of the site, which produces up to three million oysters a year.

The rows of metal trestles on the foreshore have long been at the centre of public debate, sparking protracted investigations and legal challenges at the expense of taxpayers.

For years, protesters have claimed the metal oyster racks are dangerous and an eyesore, calling for them to be removed.

But the WOC has successfully challenged any bid to see the trestles ripped up, and on Friday overcame the latest threat to its farming methods, which it says are essential for future food security.

Canterbury City Council (CCC) had refused to accept the firm had produced an adequate safety assessment for the site - a decision that risked invalidating WOC’s planning permission and could have forced it to remove the trestles.

But the local authority’s decision has now been overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate in a move Mr Green says “brings to an end to any argument over the legality of the farm”.

Speaking after the victory, he accused campaigners of encouraging public bodies to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ cash in a “senseless” attempt to stop oyster production.

“At a time when both local councils and employers are financially struggling, the question must be asked as to whether it can be in the public interest to spend substantial sums of public money trying to stop the production of the world-famous Whitstable oyster,” he said.

“Surely, with all the associated social, financial, employment and environmental benefits that this production brings to the town, this is senseless.”

The ruling is the latest development in a complex and long-running saga.

It began in 2009 when the WOC installed trestles across an area of the foreshore it owns to trial the harvesting of non-native Pacific rock oysters that cannot reproduce.

The process - which proved incredibly successful - involves laying sacks of oysters on the racks until they reach a marketable size.

The trestles were initially only placed on an area of the foreshore governed by CCC, which ruled in 2010 that no planning permission was required as the racks were non-permanent structures and did not “constitute development”.

The WOC continued to develop the area before applying to the Marine Maritime Organisation (MMO) in 2016 for an exemption to install trestles further out to sea, in a zone overseen by the government body.

The MMO believed the racks posed a risk to boats and other water vessels, but independent investigations ultimately concluded in 2018 that “the array of trestles do not currently constitute an obstruction or danger to navigation” and the exemption was granted.

By this time, the scale of the wider farm had increased from hundreds of trestles to more than 5,000 across both zones.

As their numbers had grown, locals had raised fears over the potential danger the racks presented to swimmers, dinghies and windsurfers.

Whitstable Beach Campaign (WBC), a community group which campaigns to maintain public access to the beach and foreshore, argued the farm had also seriously affected the ability of residents and seaside visitors to enjoy the foreshore.

It was against this backdrop that CCC in 2018 issued a surprise enforcement notice demanding the removal of the trestles closest to the beach - about 20% of the site.

It argued the farm now constituted development, giving the WOC two months to tear up the racks, while adding it would consider a retrospective planning application.

However, the WOC appealed and successfully overturned the enforcement notice in 2021 - at a cost of almost £1 million in legal fees - and with it won planning approval.

After a lengthy public inquiry, a planning inspector ruled that while there was “some additional risk to water users”, the risks on their own were “not sufficient reason to refuse planning permission.”

At the inquiry, members of the WBC asked for a beach safety assessment (BSA) to be produced by the Oyster Company - with the inspector making it a condition of the planning approval.

The caveat was imposed primarily to ensure sufficient warning notices and buoys were put in place, as the trestles are fully submerged at high tide and people on the beach need to be aware of their presence if swimming or engaging in other water sports.

The oyster company produced a BSA that was recommended for approval by city council officers, who would typically decide such matters under delegated powers.

But it was instead put before councillors, who threw another fly in the ointment in 2022 by rejecting the proposed safety assessment amid concerns it was inadequate.

Not having an accepted BSA would have invalidated the WOC’s planning permission, and potentially paved the way for the city council to once again issue an enforcement notice.

But the oyster company appealed and on Friday the decision was overturned, with the Planning Inspectorate ruling the BSA was sufficient.

Mr Green continued: “The inspector concluded that many of the extensive objections, brought by the Whitstable Beach Campaign and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, had already been discussed at length during the previous planning enquiry, which also found in WOC’s favour.”

In the decision notice, the planning inspector said measures to “mitigate potential identified risks” have been adequately set out.

These included an education website, increased beach signage, and ensuring buoys are in the correct place and monitored.

In the inspector’s view, the details submitted were sufficient to demonstrate that any risks for beach users were minimised and to discharge the condition.

“Overall, the documents allow the appellant sufficient discretion in the management of hazards and related actions, whilst ensuring that the safety of beach users is mitigated,” they said.

Many other concerns relating to the size and necessity of the farm were lodged by campaigners but these were ruled out by the inspector as they were addressed in the 2021 appeal.

Mr Green hopes the latest decision draws a line under the saga, urging campaigners against instigating any further challenges.

He said: “The WBC ought to more carefully consider possible outcomes, before taking any further legal actions that have no financial risk to themselves and yet may incur expenses the local authority can ill afford, which could be spent elsewhere on more worthwhile causes in the town that we all love.”

Whitstable councillor Chris Cornell, who was among those opposed to the BSA, said: “I think most people will appreciate councillors took time to listen to the arguments and made their decision independently in this case.

“Twice the council committees have voted to reject this application and agreed with concerns about the safety of these trestles.

“Twice our decision has been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate.

“I think it is disappointing the decision here was not any different but we do not make decisions based on what larger corporations consider we should do and should not start now.”

Responding to Mr Green’s comments, a city council spokesman was unable to provide the total cost to the authority of the long-running planning saga.

He added: “This appeal was dealt with through the written representations procedure so no external legal advisers were required.

“Therefore the cost to the council was officer time, which we aren’t able to quantify.”

The WBC was contacted for comment.