More than 300 oyster trestles on Whitstable beach could be removed after they were found to be unlawful by the city council.

After an investigation into the safety of oyster racks owned by Whitstable Oyster Company, the firm was asked by the council to apply for a certificate of lawful existing use or development (CLEUD).

To gain the certificate, the company had to prove trestles had been "substantially completed" more than four years ago – making them lawful and immune from planning control.

But the council has now ruled there was not enough evidence to suggest this was the case.

Council spokesman Rob Davies said: "Following detailed examination, we have decided the evidence submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that the section of oyster trestles covered by the application has been in situ for at least four years from the date of the application.

"Therefore, we have concluded the operations on the land for this activity are not lawful.

"We will now consider enforcement action to secure the removal of the unlawful oyster trestles.

"The applicant has the right to appeal this decision to the independent Planning Inspectorate, or can submit a planning application to formally use the land in this way," he said.

The CLEUD application refers to an area containing 320 trestles.

While the total number of trestles currently on Whitstable beach is unknown, the Oyster Company estimates that in 2016 there were about 2,400.

More than 220 local residents and organisations commented on the CLEUD application on the council's planning website – with many arguing it should be refused.

Julian Blades wrote: "The trestles are a danger to all beach and water users, swimmers, sailors, children paddling, bait diggers.

"They are not adequately signposted and so at mid-level tide to high tide level they are not visible."

Others acknowledged the benefits the oyster industry brings to the town.

"But so does the beautiful beach for people to enjoy with either swimming and the enjoyment of water sports," said Sarah McKenzie. "Which also profits variable businesses.

"The sea is meant to be free for everyone to enjoy and not to be used for profit to a small minority."

Oyster Company boss James Green has previously defended the trestles on Whitstable beach which, according to the firm, increased almost 10-fold between 2010 and 2016.

After the council allegedly ruled in 2010 that they "do not constitute development and therefore are not controllable under planning legislation", the company continued to add more metal racks to the beach each year.

But, according to the firm's CLEUD application, the council's view changed in May 2017. Due to the coverage and permanency of the trestles, it ruled they now constitute a "building" and therefore require permission.

It is believed this is the first time an English oyster farm has been asked to submit a CLEUD application for trestles.

An Oyster Company spokesman said: "Whilst we are disappointed in the initial decision of Canterbury City Council to refuse the CLEUD application in relation to the oyster trestles on our land, we are still committed to the regularisation of the planning issues relating to the oyster trestles so that the sustainable production of the world famous Whitstable Oyster can continue.”

What do you think? Email whitstablegazette@thekmgroup.co.uk