Blinking Owl, and Cllr Sheldon opens a can of Green Belt worms!

Ten out of Ten for persistence awarded to cllr Sheldon over his examination into the possibilities of development of the Blinking Owl site in the North of the Borough.
When the possibilities were first brought to public attention a senior Castle Point Council Officer dismissed the possibility of development at the site as being unfeasible.
The Officers response in the Echo report this time around was less certain.
A major drawback though will be seen as the identification of there being 80 landowners to be brought together for the scheme to work.
A Planning Inspector would also need convincing that this is a possibility.
Some land owners may be reluctant to sell, others may feel their land of more value than others.
No doubt cllr Sheldon is wrestling with the desire to keep Mainland ward residents happy and feels that by selecting this site for development, being on the edge of the populated area, this may go someway to achieving this desire.
The land could be described as previously developed, although not to the extent of its whole area. This may not sit comfortably with an Inspector.
However a major drawback could be the site’s Green Belt status and the functions it fulfils.
Its situation sees it fulfill the function of separating Rayleigh from Castle Point. It also can be argued that it performs the same function with Basildon.
This has repercussions with the Glebelands proposal.
If Glebelands Appeal is successful and Castle Point Council were to support the Blinking Owl proposal the whole Green Belt along the western edge of the Borough will be susceptible to development, from the A127 to the A13!
The debate has now opened up to finding sites for development that cause less confrontation to the least number of people.
Previously this has been based on who can defend themselves least democratically wise, namely Canvey Island.
We do not feel that Canvey Island Green Belt sites are any safer under the current policies advanced by our Authority under the Local Plan than they were for the Core Strategy. So we continue to prepare to defend the over development of the Island.
On the face of what little news that emerges on the sites for development it appears that the Mainland electorate is the priority to protect, but are the principles any better?
Can the Blinking Owl site be considered any sounder than any other site? It is still Green Belt with similar protection as other sites. Worse still without a developer, with only a matter of months before the Local Plan should be published.
Residents were PROMISED by senior Councillors that by having a 5-year housing supply the Green Belt would be protected.
Does the site selection included within the 5 year supply make the residents around Jotmans Farm feel confident that Persimmon’s proposal will be turned down when they go to Appeal?
How confident can we be that the 5 year housing supply will convince the Inspectorate not to allow the Glebelands Appeal?
We will soon learn!
Remember that was the purpose of announcing the 5 year housing supply, in advance of an up to date evidence base.
Personally I fear for the Borough’s Green Belt.
Sites selection must make sense.
Is the Blinking Owl anymore sustainable than a site near a Town Centre or Railway Station?
Possibly being close to the major road networks that would take commuters efficiently away from Castle Point may be viewed as an asset point.
It is obvious though with the condition of the A127 and it’s ability to handle the current volumes of traffic urgent upgrading work must be put in place.
Are there any plans in place for this? No plans for this have appeared in the Local Plan evidence base to suggest improvements are in the pipe line yet.
Going public and referring to the Blinking Owl site gives a worrying clue that the Authority accept they cannot defend the Green Belt.
If Localism was able to offer the protection necessary then our Council could be expected to receive a sympathetic response from the Government. It appears the Council have given up on this course of defence.
They also appear to have given up on defending the numbers of population that can be expected to migrate to the area.
It may well be that without a radical plan and proposing population numbers that residents will support, accepting that Green Belt will be lost forever is an inevitability.
The dopportunity to receive the new housing bonuses into the Council coffers appears an irresistible desire.
The Authority will contend their position dictates they have to make difficult decisions. Previously the Mainland Group hid behind the selection of Canvey’s Dutch Village Green Belt site as the large development proposal in the Borough’s Core Strategy.
This they hoped would protect the votes in the Mainland wards.
That document was a failure.
Now the Authority are faced with naming Mainland Green Belt sites. They first chose previously developed sites hoping that argument would convince the Inspectorate and appease the electorate.
The unrest at the recent Polls has made them look elsewhere for other less contentious sites.
If they feel that the Blinking Owl is the site that causes least unrest, fair enough.
But they will have to convince other developers and an Inspector that the evidence behind their site selection is fair, just and sound.
Unless increasing population numbers the loss of Green Belt and infrastructure issues are addressed, massive repercussions lay ahead for the Authority, the Borough and residents!
The hardest thing for residents and especially Councillors to admit to themselves, and I definitely don’t aim this specifically at Cllr Sheldon, is whether they support certain sites for development because they are the most sound and sustainable sites in the Borough, or because they cause them least discomfort by being out of their own locality.

Glebelands Appeal Update.

Looking at the statistics for this site it appears that some of our readership are anxious to learn the outcome of the Glebelands Development Appeal.
The latest is that the result should have been reached on, or before the 16th of May.
The Planning Inspector has reached his decision, however our MP, Rebecca Harris’s had the foresight to intervene, and requested that the SoS should give final verdict.
SoS Eric Pickles representative has written to explain that the Department are running late with reviews and will require a further two weeks to reach a decision.
I will post news of any decision as soon as I learn the result, as it is clear this will have implications to other Green Belt sites in the Borough, especially Jotmans Farm, the Dutch Village and I guess this may also have a bearing on Daws Heath!
Please log onto the blog at regular intervals for latest updates.

Showing little respect to the Planning Inspectorate, may well prove expensive for Castle Point’s Green Belt

Although not a Green Belt site the Canvey Green Belt Campaign Group have followed, with interest, the Planning Proposal for a development of flats at Leige Avenue, Canvey Island ever since Cllr Neville Watson approached our Group to check information he had on the documentation accompanying the Application.

The proposal was refused permission on access and vehicular reasons.

Despite certain flood risk evidence being submitted by cllr watson the Committee Chairman refused to accept flood risk as a reason for refusal.

The developer selected to take the refusal to Appeal.

Following the Appeal correspondence it is interesting to note that certain documents, requested by the Inspector considering the Appeal, have not been supplied by Castle Point Planning Team causing the Inspector to repeat the request.

This reminds us of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Document and its publication causing delays during the Inspectors consideration of the Core Strategy.
Despite promises from the Council team it would be available within a reasonable time frame, it was in fact a matter of weeks outside the promised deadline much to the Inspectors consternation.

The Leige Avenue Appeal correspondence from the Council suggests to the Inspectorate that there does not yet exist a means of collecting funds from developers for future sea defence improvements.

However the EA submission, accepted by Castle Point Planners, on the Thorney Bay development proposal, that is being pushed through for inclusion within the new Local Plan, makes clear that a funding process does exist.

What with cllr Partridge’s “go away Mr Inspector, you are not wanted here!” statement as the Core Strategy was withdrawn, Castle Point Council do not appear to be making an effort to keep the Inspectorate “on side.”

This could well prove an expensive mistake should further Castle Point Green belt sites go to the Planning Inspector on Appeal as most likely the Jotmans Farm proposal will well do.

Any links between CPBC Cabinet Membership selection, UKIP result and the Glebelands Appeal result?

The Castle Point Borough Council meet tonight, Wednesday 15th May, to appoint the members who will hold the senior positions.
The apponted Councillors especially the Cabinet members and the Development Contol members will have the biggest influence on the new Local Plan.
Clearly the housing allocation to be included in the Plan will threaten the Borough’s Green Belt.
Cllr Sharp has hinted that he is uneasy at the site selection process within the Core Strategy and the new Local Plan.
Will the recent 14-11 result of the Conservative Leading Group Leadership election
be reflected in the selection of the Cabinet membership?
The Mainland County Council Election vote to some extent highlighted the unrest amongst residents on the particular threat to their Green Belt by development, in that two senior Councillors were beaten by the UKIP candidates.
Another factor that will have enormous repurcussions, depending on the result, is the Glebelands development Appeal.
The result of the Appeal is due to be announced by the SoS Eric Pickles on the 16th May, tomorrow,or before.
Surely the result has yet to be decided.
Surely CPBC do not have the power or influence that could delay the announcement until after the appointments in tonights Full Council meeting!
It would indeed look suspicious if Cabinet membership was decided just the very evening before an upheld Appeal decision was announced.
All Green Belt campaigners eyes are focussed on the make up of the Cabinet and the result of the Glebelands Appeal.

A case for reviewing the housing need in Castle Point and still achieving a “sound” Local Plan! !

The following case study is lifted from Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners review of the first 12 months of applying the National Planning Policy Framework to housing targets in Local Plans.
The case study is interesting as Hertsmere is 39 square miles in size with a population of approximately 100,000.
Castle Point in comparison is 17.4 square miles in size and with a population of 89,000.
Both are considered tightly constrained by the Green Belt.

The Case Study reads:
“

More of the same at Castle Point Borough level ?

Three factors influence the recent Conservative Group leadership election contest.

The Cabinet system, the recent UKIP success on the Mainland, and the potential disagreement on the sites selected for housing development in the 6 – 15 year period of the Local Plan, particularly those not as yet announced to the general public.

The result was 14 – 11 in favour of retaining Cllr Pam Challis as Leader.

Regarding retaining the Cabinet system  issue, the result did not appear a ringing endorsement, as one would assume all cabinet members would automatically be in favour of the system’s retention.

This, it seems fair to assume, accounts for at least 8 of the 14 votes.

The 11 Members that voted against may feel a lack of input into decision making an important issue.

Previously the opposition Councillor members have voiced their disapproval of the system.
Perhaps, a possible 36 – 14 majority in favour of a more open committee system.

However if the alternative system were to be adopted the difficulties in proposing sites for housing allocation possibly being debated in the open, rather than being identified in advance of any announcement, may lead to it being impossible for any progress being made with the  Local Plan due to disagreement amongst Councillors.

It does lead you to assume that housing allocation sites will be selected by the power of political persuasion and influence rather than the relevant attributes such as their sustainability values.

Much like the process has worked in the past, especially during the Core Strategy process!

Castle Point Leadership challenge.

An unconfirmed message has reached me to say that the result of the Conservative Leadership challenge returned a 14 – 11 endorsement for cllr Pam Challis to retain her position as Leader of Castle Point Borough Council.

With the recent rejection of two of the Conservative County Councillors in preference to the UKIP candidates pressure will be on the Cabinet in their processing of the new Local Plan.

There was obvious unrest amongst Mainland residents at the potential loss of Green Belt. This would be echoed by Mainland Councillors especially as they may have been privy to an early look at the Local Plan’s 6 – 15 year housing distribution, leading to the Leadership challenge.

This does not bode well for Canvey Island as it could be caught  in the cross fire of the battle between Mainland ward Councillors.

Every house built on Canvey obviously means one less required in the Mainland towns.

Canvey has precious little accessible Green belt left as it is.

The development at Thorney Bay is intended to be over twice the size of any proposed development on the Mainland.

As I said the leadership result is as yet unconfirmed.