Castle Point Councillors – Intervention and Fear, should they continue defying Logic! Local Planning under Duress. UPDATED

Fear and Intimidation appeared to be the message to Canvey Island and Castle Point councillors as they come to consider in Secret, the implications of being listed by Secretary of State Sajid Javid over their lack of progress on a Local Plan, and being  in danger of Government Intervention!

At the December 2017 council meeting the cpbc Chief Executive made clear that unless either good progress is being made regarding the Duty to Cooperate, or clear constraints are recorded in the reply to the Secretary of State as to why progress isn’t being made, Intervention is likely.

The CEO stated that he neither wished to, nor expected to be put in the position of drawing up the new Local Plan, whichever version is now being worked on.

Instead Intervention would likely be taken by an outside body, for instance the Planning Inspectorate, a specialist organisation or perhaps even those south Essex councils working collectively on the Duty to Cooperate.

If it doesn’t already this should Ring Alarm Bells for those Residents living on the mainland!

You may ask why those Residents in particular?

Well, during the cpbc Core Strategy process, during 2009 Baker Associates appointed to consider the Sustainability Assessment on the Housing Site selection process drew attention to their being puzzled, as to why cpbc should overlook choosing for development, the Borough’s Highest Scoring Sustainable site. They wrote;

The review of the outcomes of the site assessment revealed the site scoring highest against the assessment sustainability criteria has not been allocated.

This site is greenfield land to the east of Rayleigh Road.

Neither the DPD or site assessment process gives a justification for this site not being allocated. 

The Sustainability Assessment suggests that the allocation of this site could have preferable implications for sustainable development than other “mainland” allocations.

This Appraisal extract gives clear indication of how a planning consultant, and most likely the Planning Inspectorate would apply a logical approach to Housing Site Allocation, should they be appointed as a Local Plan Intervention measure!

Similarly, as Baker Associates were responding to a cpbc report, one must consider it most likely that a similar approach would be taken by cpbc officers if they were appointed to undertake compiling the next version of the cpbc Local Plan!

An Inspector, should one be required to Intervene and produce a Local Plan may likely produce one completely undesirable to mainland councillors preferences. Remember these comments from an Inspector;

Additional material…

“An exercise was then carried out to objectively assess these sites against a number of criteria. I have reservations about the methodology employed and the way in which it appears to have been used, leading to inconsistent and inappropriate site selection. For example, the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal is unclear as to why the most sustainable Green Belt site was discounted.”

“I therefore consider the Council needs to revisit its assessment of Green Belt locations paying particular regard to the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in PPG2. I accept that other considerations will also influence the choice of sites but potential locations should not be dismissed because local factors are given too much weight. This appears to have happened previously.”

“The Council’s desire to protect its Green Belt areas is understandable but its approach has also had a considerable bearing on the overall distribution of growth promoted in the Core Strategy. In this respect, I consider it would be difficult to endorse a strategy which commits to Green Belt release in an area of potential high flood risk at Canvey Island….”

“While I accept some development at Canvey Island may be required to meet local needs and to support services, I am not convinced that maintaining the current distribution of development across the Borough is justified given the existing constraints.”

The above comments highlight the desired distribution of Housing Growth across “certain” parts of the Borough of lead group members and is indicative of the perceived use of Canvey Island to their retention of control of cpbc.

The latest drive is to seek out Brownfield sites to supply the new Housing Allocation.

The Brownfield site list drawn up by cpbc and included alongside the council meeting’s Agenda paperwork indicated a minimum of 254 dwellings on sites achieving the required criteria.
This supply was contained in Part 1 of the Brownfield Register.

No sites were put forward as being eligible for Part 2 of the Register, those having been granted by cpbc, Permission to develop in Principle.

The chief explanation given for this being;

“Canvey Island is within Flood Risk Zone 3a, and as such planning applications for residential development normally require a Flood Risk Assessment. Advice is awaited from the Environment Agency as to if and how the Council could go about addressing this requirement before proceeding to consider any sites on Canvey Island for inclusion on the Part 2 of the Register”

img_0802

It appears that behind the scenes there remains a refusal to apply development Constraints equally across the Borough, the focus has been and remains Canvey Island, where development is concerned!

Interestingly no specific reasons for sites in other areas of Castle Point not being granted Permission in Principle and inclusion in Part 2 of the Register were given. Presumably they were covered by the caveat “a decision on whether to grant “Permission in Principle” to a site must be made in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations”

For the record the Brownfield list may, just, fulfil one years development supply of Castle Point’s required 5 Year Housing Supply requirement!

The Paddocks site, was not included in the Brownfield site Register, possibly because, as we were informed by Cllr smith, all options are open and no decision has yet been made whether to demolish or carry out much needed work on the building!

Interestingly during the council meeting a question about the total sum estimated to renovate the Paddocks was raised by Cllr Campagna, to which we the council leader explained that the £1million+ is a figure estimated to be required spending over the next 20 Years, and NOT as we were allowed to believe by Cllr smith at the Canvey Community meeting, required immediately!

The Blinking Owl site, seemingly the answer to the mainland’s Housing Supply requirement is excluded from the Brownfield Register.

This site first made public during March 2014 appears yet to have had a firm development application proposed to cpbc.

A Local Plan Examiner would be more likely to take the Blinking Owl venture seriously, should there have been some development proposals for parts of this site already on the table, but there is not!

Duty to Cooperate work is ongoing with cpbc being represented by the council leader, his deputy and senior officer/s. It appears that officers are applying the results of the DtC work into a newest Local Plan.

Should the efforts of this cpbc delegation be found worthy and Government Intervention be avoided, in the least the cpbc Local Plan will represent a localised extract of a South Essex Regional Plan. Ironically Regional Spatial Strategies were abolished after 6 years in 2010.

The newest Local Plan version may bear severe repercussions should the cpbc council choose not to approve, given the Duty to Cooperate work being carried out by cpbc leader and officers.!

A meeting will be held in secret at cpbc, to presumably inform councillors of the Duty to Cooperate progress and the Fears of Intervention, during this week.

Castle Point is not the only local authority failing to find enough Brownfield site to fulfil their immediate Housing Needs. More can be read via this LINK.

Advertisements

Canvey Green Belt Campaign Important Announcement – Change of Website.

Shortly our website will be closing.

Please Note all Communication and Updates will be continued through these 3 existing media outlets;

This current WordPress Blog:  http://www.canveygb.wordpress.com

On Facebook via:  http://www.facebook.com/CanveyGreenBeltCampaign

On Twitter via: @canveygreenbelt

Only the website will be affected: http://www.canveygb.co.uk/

After 9 long years and having served its purpose well the decision has been made for this arm of communication to be closed. This is purely a cost cutting measure. Funds have diminished and to continue, the Campaign will be managed via “out of pocket” expenses, for the foreseeable future.

We hope that those of you supporting AND those opposing the Canvey Green Belt Campaign will continue to equally enjoy, and be annoyed by our ramblings. We are grateful for every single “View” that we have received and Comment made, Long May it Continue!

The important thing is to care about maintaining the good of Canvey Island and improving the bad.

Only when Islanders adopt a position of Indifference or Apathy will we be unable collectively to Challenge a Castle Point Local Plan that may promote Inappropriate Development, leading to the loss of Green Space, increase in Pollution and Traffic Congestion, Inadequate Infrastructure and Increased Flood Risk.

We hope to continue to please, annoy, amuse, war, criticise, and inform for as long as we can via the outlets listed below. Your continued Support and Input remains, as always, Appreciated!

Please Add our continuing Media Outlets to your Computer Favourites list:

http://www.canveygb.wordpress.com

http://www.facebook.com/CanveyGreenBeltCampaign

Twitter   @canveygreenbelt

2017-12-08

April 1st 2015 Blog Post

Can the Principle of “Localism” survive the Duty to Cooperate between Castle Point and Neighbouring Authorities attempts at Cooperation?

Local Development Scheme July 2017
This Local Development Scheme (LDS) sets out the programme for preparing planning policy documents in Castle Point. This version replaces all earlier versions of the LDS, including that issued in March 2016.
By giving this a new title will not hide the fact that there has been failing via the Core Strategy and two other versions of a Local Plan!

Castle Point Borough Council seeks to prepare a local planning framework based on a series of statutory and non-statutory planning documents as development plan documents and supplementary planning documents, covering strategic and local matters.

The LDS sets out the Council’s programme for achieving this.

Perhaps an indication as to why other plans have failed, let’s investigate;

In order to ensure that the planning policy documents that are prepared by Castle Point Borough Council are robust, and do not come under criticism at examination or appeal, the Council will be seeking to ensure that its evidence base is complete and that all work has been carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance.

Is this a suggestion that all other works have not been ROBUST and therefore unable to withstand criticism?
Or, worse still;
That the previous works were not carried out in accordance with relevant legislation and guidance!

This includes ensuring that consultation is effective, and also ensuring that opportunities to work with our neighbouring Councils, Essex County Council and other service providers have been fully considered and integrated into the documents where appropriate, consistent within the “Duty to Co-operate”

A Robust Evidence Base
Any development plan document must be based on adequate, up to date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area and takes account of relevant market and economic signals to inform judgements about demand.

Having an up to date local planning framework reduces the risk that the presumption contained in the NPPF will apply, to grant permission where the existing Local Plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or out of date.

This statement unfortunately speaks in-itself.

Some of the documents listed as being complete, are quite simply, out of date!

Not everyone within the local community engages with planning consultations regardless of the amount of effort taken by the Council. As a result, it is also necessary to use empirical evidence to ensure that the needs of everyone represented by the Council are fully considered.

Clearly there has been a huge failure on the Councils part to engage with our community

Community Engagement
Every planning policy document will need to be the subject of consultation in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

In practice, before each consultation, a consultation plan will be prepared by the Council detailing how the Council will:
• Promote the consultation; • Make information available; • Engage with residents; and • Manage consultation data.

It is the aim of the Council in all cases to engage as widely as possible with “duty to co-operate” bodies, statutory and non-statutory consultees, local residents and businesses on plans and proposals that may affect them.

Clearly there has been a huge failure on the Councils part to engage with our community despite seemingly its best efforts. CPBC blames the community for its failure of a successful community involvement outcome.

What CPBC appear to have missed is that the community feel, done too, by not being asked.

A petition of over 10000 signature demanding infrastructure prior to any further large-scale housing development, not being recognised by CPBC as community engagement is rather typical!

IMG_1557

Largest ever Canvey Island Petition: Ignored by Castle Point Borough Council!

Empirical evidence (based or acting on observations or experience NOT ON THEORY) has been the fundamental failure of the content of several of the evidence based documents used to support the previous debacle of CPBC Local Planning. To continue with this style of documentation will once again make the CPBC Local Development Scheme not only challengeable but unsound.

The NPPF explains that, to be sound, policies must be justified. The evidence will play an important role in ensuring that this is the case and that the local planning framework is sound.
The evidence base requirements for each of the documents in the Local Development Scheme are set out in the detailed programmes. Once a piece of evidence is completed, it is published on the Council’s website for inspection.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING IN SOUTH ESSEX.
CPBC will, in its response letter to the SOS, as to why intervention is not required in the formulation of its Local Plan, suggest that considerable weight be given to the fact that CPBC partakes within the protocol of the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING IN SOUTH ESSEX ( MoU)
This despite declaring that its Local Development Scheme 2017 will not come to fruition until late 2019. This in the hope that other neighbouring Authorities may take some of its housing needs.
The National Planning Policy Framework encourages authorities to prepare joint, non-statutory documents, particularly where this provides evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross boundary impacts.

Whilst the Duty to Co-operate is not a duty to agree, local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination. Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate will need to be demonstrated at examination, prior to assessment of compliance with the tests of soundness.

The legal requirement of the Duty to Co-operate is noted as being separate from, but related to the Local Plan, Tests of Soundness.

In keeping with the principles of localism, this MoU respects the principle of the individual local development plan-making functions of the South Essex local authorities. Therefore, it will not seek to determine the locations for development within local authority administrative areas.

Furthermore, it will not seek to include prescriptive or directive policies which would limit the ability of the individual local authorities to meet their development needs in a locally appropriate manner.

Canvey Island, is there Foundation for Park Homes Boost at Roscommon Way’s Expense!

It almost appears inevitable that Canvey Island will once again supply the bulk of the Borough’s Housing Delivery in the near future!

The all important Local Plan 5 Year Housing Supply will be boosted, or drained, by the success of the Sandy Bay venture at the Thorney Bay caravan site.

The potential for 1,000+ dwellings, will impact upon the area for better or worse, one of the major impacts, is seemingly the death knell of the Roscommon Way final extension. That is unless the cpbc cabinet’s appeal to Essex County Council to intervene, produces a significant U-turn in the developer’s plans for the Park Homes site.

From the Map below it is difficult to envisage a different route for the Roscommon Way extension that would not divide or disrupt the Sandy Bay site and its community, nor one that would not involve substantial Compulsory Purchase Orders.

Screenshot (3)

copyright: Google

The Sandy Bay development is aimed at the over 50’s and retirees, people who will have invested substantial sums and expect the use of the facilities on offer as well as an element of peace and quiet. A main commuter route that may divide the Park Homes site would prove an obstacle in creating the proposed facility. One can only hope that ECC can come up with a solution, otherwise the almost annual, call for road infrastructure improvement funding for Canvey Island, will be added to that of Canvey Way and Somnes Avenue!

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 gave the Thorney Bay site the Green Light to switch tack from the application for 600+ “bricks and mortar dwellings, to an even more numerous Park Home development.

” ‘Park Home’ is the industry name for a caravan which is used for residential purpose.

National Planning Policy, as reflected in the NPPF, requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to produce Local Plans that will deliver the full, Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN), for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. The Government’s online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out the methodology for assessing housing need; it refers to specific types of housing which should be considered. No reference is made to Park Homes or residential caravans. Accordingly, there is no duty for LPAs to forward plan for provision of this type of housing.”

“”…the needs of people residing in or resorting to their district with respect to the provision of-  (a) sites on which caravans can be stationed…”

This suggests that local housing authorities (this includes District Councils and London Borough Councils) will need to start forward planning for provision of residential caravans.
This is a significant step change from other recent planning legislation because it is the first time non-gypsy caravans have been recognised as having a role in contributing towards the supply of housing in a given area.” *

All along CPBC have stated that their planning control powers are restricted to the point of no influence, this despite the apparent desire through the many versions of their Local Plan intending to seek central funding to provide the residents to the Eastern and Southern part of Canvey Island relief from the congested routes off of and onto the Island.

A balance between Homes, Congestion Relief and Profit, with congestion relief finishing an out of site 3rd!

Prior to the 2016 Housing Act it may have been necessary for a development application for Sandy Bay to have gone through the planning channels at CPBC. An apparent similar proposal went before Chelmsford Council’s planners, this site also is subject to Flood Risk so would have required sending to the Environment Agency, as consultees, for consideration. 

The use of the 2016 Housing Act, allows the Sandy Bay site to evolve outside of the Local Plan and cpbc planning processes.

Essex County Council may also have reservations in pursuing the remainder of the Roscommon Way link, as the original phases, whether as a cost saving exercise or not, were constructed with a shortened Life Span.**

The completion, however, of the final phase of Roscommon Way would increase usage of the existing phases from commuter, leisure and industrial vehicles, both hazardous and non-hazardous. ECC would need to ask what would be the likely effect of the increased usage on the road foundations, and subsequently the hazardous pipework beneath the existing Roscommon Way, especially where vehicles are filtered into the single lane areas of the carriageway?

Usually the provision of new Highways are restricted by the levels of new Business Use, rather than a level of commuter congestion. The completed stages of the Roscommon Way fulfilled this requirement, it will need compelling evidence, which may have come from a traditional “bricks and mortar” development at Thorney Bay, for the completion phase to be realised.

The problems of developing on Canvey Island are manifold, that one developer appears to understand ways of traversing these obstacles, is clear.

The residents of Canvey Island  are now encouraged by cpbc to direct their hopes and protest for highway congestion relief towards Essex County Council!

*The views of Sanderson Weatherall.                                                            http://sw.co.uk/property-consultancy/planning/911-the-housing-and-planning-act-2016

** http://planning.chelmsford.gov.uk/Planning/lg/dialog.page?Param=lg.Planning&org.apache.shale.dialog.DIALOG_NAME=gfplanningsearch&viewdocs=true&SDescription=14/00722/FUL

Neighbourhood Plans, cheap Political Shots and Canvey Island!

It is not for Us, the Canvey Green Belt Campaign group to defend the Actions or Inactions of Canvey Island Town Council but, on the subject of Neighbourhood Plans, some perspective should be applied!

As you can see from the Map reproduced below, Castle Point as a whole, is Actionless where Neighbourhood Plan’s are concerned!

This despite the mainland area being split into several distinct neighbourhood areas such as Daws Heath and the like.

There is a very good reason for these area’s residents not seeking to do as they encourage Canvey Island Town Council to do, in undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan, that is Residents there are represented by the controlling group at cpbc, and a Borough-wide Local Plan has been attempted to be processed, over 10 very long years, with protection from mainland development in mind.

Screenshot (2)

Neighbourhood Plans position as at November 2017

Neighbourhood Plans are not there to Prevent Development.

The Canvey Green Belt Campaign were fully behind a local Neighbourhood Plan for the Canvey Island Area, because we believed that what could be prevented was Inappropriate Development!

So whilst others seek to take cheap shots at us on Canvey, it is appropriate to reproduce what the Castle Point Borough Council representative’s considered opinion on the subject was:

 In short, yes it would be possible to create a “Canvey Neighbourhood Plan”.

However, Government guidance makes clear that such plans cannot “de-designate” anything that is presently in an Adopted Local Plan.

So the development sites on Canvey at The Point, Thorney Bay, Roscommon Way and Northwick Road would all have to be carried forward into the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Government’s advice on Neighbourhood Plans is to be found at the Planning Practice Guidance web-pages

http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/

It contains some very interesting and helpful advice.

However, my colleagues in other parts of the County tell me that it is a very time consuming and expensive process, although there is grant available.

The particular points I have picked up in discussion are

·         The Plan is supposed to promote additional sustainable development in addition to that already in any adopted plan

·         The Plan must have regard to any evidence of objectively assessed needs, particularly up-to date evidence of housing needs

I’ve also picked some interesting points from the Guidance, which I have copied below…

Decision makers may find themselves considering applications in an area with a neighbourhood plan that has passed referendum and been “made”, and thus forms part of the development plan, but where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

In such instances paragraph 49 of the Framework is clear that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” Paragraph 49 applies to policies in the statutory development plan documents which have been adopted or approved in relation to a local planning authority area. It also applies to policies in made neighbourhood plans.

 A neighbourhood plan can allocate additional sites to those in a Local Plan where this is supported by evidence to demonstrate need above that identified in the Local Plan. A neighbourhood plan can propose allocating alternative sites to those in a Local Plan, but a qualifying body should discuss with the local planning authority why it considers the Local Plan allocations no longer appropriate.

 The resulting draft neighbourhood plan must meet the basic conditions if it is to proceed. National planning policy states that it should support the strategic development needs set out in the Local Plan, plan positively to support local development and should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies (see paragraph 16 and paragraph 184 of the National Planning Policy Framework). Nor should it be used to constrain the delivery of a strategic site allocated for development in the Local Plan.

The Question for those who criticise is, if a Neighbourhood plan is such a useful device, why then are more not being undertaken?

The Canvey Green Belt Campaign group remain in favour of the process.

Would you choose to get Involved with Castle Point’s Local Plan if you didn’t have to Sajid Javid?

Thorney Bay, Jotmans Farm, Green Belt, Flood Risk, Travellers, Duty to Cooperate, Period of Purdah, Reasons why the Government are Unlikely to Intervene in Castle Point Local Plan Process.

What are the likelihoods of Intervention, from an uneducated viewpoint?

The Intervention by a Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, in the Local Plan process at Castle Point would appear a highly unusual step to be taken.

Previous local intervention by SoS Sajid Javid included the Jotmans Farm Appeal and his Dismissal decision of his Planning Inspector, released on the 21st April 2017.

General Election 8th June 2017

Period of Purdah starts 22nd April 2017 (coincidence?)

Purdah: Purdah is the official pre-election period between the election announcement and final results which places restrictions of civil servants.                                                         Local and central governments will continue with business as usual, but must be careful not to take any action or make any announcements that could show affiliation to a political party. The litmus test is: “Could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?”

The Jotmans decision’s Pro and Cons included;

Report on the Examination of the Castle Point New Local Plan 2016, which concluded that the duty to co-operate had not been complied with. The Council determined to withdraw the dNLP 2016.

The CPBC’s failure to save LP Policy GB1, the Green Belt designation, shown on the Proposals Map, persists

Given the withdrawal of the dNLP, the Secretary of State takes the view that no weight can be afforded to the withdrawn policies.

He (SoS) further agrees that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

He agrees that the degree of landscape harm caused by the proposal would be limited

He shares the Inspector’s view that the proposal could lead to an improvement in the existing situation, and that issues around flooding do not weigh against the proposal.

He considers that concerns about the potential impact of construction traffic can be addressed by means of conditions, or by the Highway Authority

He further agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would bring forward market and affordable housing in an area where there has been a longstanding failure to provide sufficient new housing, and that in view of the prevailing housing supply situation in Castle Point, that carries very substantial weight in favour of the scheme

He further agrees that the creation or securing of jobs, the generation of economic activity in the construction process and the stimulation of the local economy carry a considerable degree of weight in favour

He has also taken into account the Written Ministerial Statement confirming the Government’s policy that ‘subject to the best interests of the child*, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances’. He considers that this policy carries more force than the Inspector attributes to it.

The proposal is therefore in conflict with national policy on the Green Belt,.

*Green Belt and Flood Risk are both mentioned equally in regards to the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development at Footnote 9 of the NPPF, exceptions include;

policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.9

For example… land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space… and locations at risk of flooding…

*The weight given to “the best interests of the child” in regard to outweighing Harm to the Green Belt would quite reasonably be interpreted to include Flood Risk.
This would bear relationship to Travellers sites where guidance is given in the proposed siting; “do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans”
The type of Travellers Homes are likely to include caravans and mobile homes style accommodation.
Interesting then that Castle Point Council take no involvement, nor intervention in the Thorney Bay, shortly to become Sandy Bay development, given that the numbers of dwellings would make it THE largest Housing Supply site in the Castle Point Local Plan.

That CPBC are busying themselves with Cooperation Duties with our Neighbouring Councils, it may appear that Intervention measures by the Secretary of State of CPBC Local Plan processes may be considered surprising, should they eventually materialise.

But then you Never Know, do you?

Dear Sajid, re: Intervention of 15 Local Plan Councils, didn’t realise it was a Race – it’s only been 10 years, Yours Castle Point Council!

We have to hope that the correspondence capabilities at cpbc Runnymede Towers, plus of course the delicate balance of political power in the council chamber, are such that Government intervention in the cpbc Local Plan process, as threatened by the Secretary of State Sajid Javid, will prove unnecessary following the cpbc response to gov. criticism.

On the other hand, how the emerging utopia, otherwise known as Sandy Bay, will be viewed by a Planning Inspector, should one be appointed through an intervention process, will be interesting to see.

The latest cpbc Local Plan vers.IV indicates Thorney Bay as scheduled to realise 600+ dwellings, Outline in Principle is considered to have already been granted for this including the condition that land is set aside for the completion of Roscommon Way, supposedly the answer to all of Canvey Island’s traffic congestion problems.

During the November cpbc cabinet meeting concerns, bordering on panic, were voiced by members that land required for Roscommon Way phase 2 may be being planned for development of the Park Homes development, namely Sandy Bay.

ThorneyBay

Sandy Bay – Roscommon Way route?

The Thorney Bay application for 600+ dwellings includes a Condition that reads;

“”Roscommon Way Phase 2 Extension Land” Means the land to be retained unfettered and free from obstruction and any ransom strip that might fetter the ability to develop the Roscommon Way Phase 2 Extension” 

However a visit to the cpbc Planning Portal indicates that a decision on the Planning Proposal has yet to be determined and that the Conditions, or S106 Agreement remains unsigned and in Draft form only.

Meaning that the consternation of the cpbc cabinet members over Roscommon Way land becoming a “ransom strip” may be outside of their powers of control!

So a Local Plan Government appointed intervening Planning Inspector, would arrive at Castle Point to discover that the only large site identified in the Local Plan vers.IV is within a 3A Flood Zone, part of a Critical Drainage Area, within the Hazard Range of a Top Tier COMAH site and is now outside of Planning Control, due to Thorney Bay having been granted, long ago, permission as a caravan site!

As Olly Murs might sing;

“Dear Sajid, please excuse my writing.
I can’t stop my hands from shaking
‘Cause I’m cold and alone tonight.
I miss you and nothing hurts like no Plan.
And no one understands what we went through.
It was short. It was sweet. We tried.

Park Homes being simply a progression from caravans thereby a new planning application being unnecessary according to cpbc.

Being outside Planning Control there is an unknown potential for the number of Park Homes should the venture be successful, 1000 -1,600 being a possibility.

How can this guess-timate be part of a Local Plan Housing Supply, an Inspector might ask given the unplanned for numbers of delivery.

Fortunately Park Homes are counted as Housing Supply. Perhaps a Local Plan exception can be made in the case of Castle Point Council so that they may leave the 5 Housing Supply as an open ended figure, to be confirmed by the Park Home owners!

Alarm bells should be ringing at the apparent stalling of the Kiln Road delivery adding pressure onto the lack of annual Housing Supply, meaning Sandy Bay becomes more and more important inclusion in the cpbc Annual Monitoring Reports.

So an Inspector would become aware that the sole large delivering “Housing” supply site is on Canvey Island in a most inappropriate area, delivering unsubstantiated numbers of dwellings, whilst all of the mainland sites are, in one way or another, contentious!

This will not look good IF the cpbc “Dear Sajid” letter is unconvincing!

The likelihood of intervention may yet be unlikely as the High Court has twice denied the proposed developer of Jotmans farm site permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to disagree with the Planning Inspector’s Appeal decision.

One can only read into this that the allocation of Housing Supply sites are best done through the Local Plan process and that Local Plans are intended for local authorities to compile through the Town and Country Regulations.

As it appears that legal issues may require testing, the Government may be falling into the open can of worms with this Intervention initiative.

Maybe best if, even, Castle Point and the Sandy Bay developers are left to their own means!