The Blinking Owl – Canvey, giving our wholehearted support – the Price to Pay!

Last evening the Castle Point Local Plan Task an Finish group met to receive and consider updates on the site known as H18 the Blinking Owl.

Members heard that developers had been engaged in producing viability evidence and proposals to support what they believed could be achieved in terms of housing supply if the site was released from the Green Belt.

Some major issues were touched upon; Current open space compensation, access roads, number of dwellings.

The open space issue will impact upon existing residents and the suggested changes should require consultation.

The H18 area has been divided into two parts and a prospective developer offered the opportunity to provide schemes for each part. Both indicated possible major access points within their schemes.

Area known as H18, 1 and 2 showed a proposal to provide a slip road access onto the A127. From memory this was a version of a previously rejected proposal some years ago, so this may involve some serious further research.

The area known as H18, 3 and 4 proposed providing access onto the area of the existing A130 junction roundabout.

Whilst this second proposal was accompanied by revenue funding evidence, both schemes would require Essex County Council Highways agreement and assistance.

The number of potential new dwellings discussed ranged from below 600 up to the full potential of approximately 2,000.  A major development opportunity for the Borough, the first for many decades.

Once again the issue of Castle Point Council’s “Master planning” policy must receive attention. What greater example can there be of not developing to reasonable density levels causing more Green Belt sites to be released to compensate for this low density policy failing to achieve assessed housing need?

Arthur-Daley-FT

The issue of development on Green Belt release therefore requires some consideration. Brandon Lewis has recently confirmed that Green Belt is a constraint that may be used to protect from development. To then promote one Green Belt site for development over others will require some site selection explanation, not least that of sustainability and Green Belt function.

The accompanying explanation should also involve some watertight evidence, so as to be defendable under Examination from developers with alternate proposals for other Green Belt sites.

There is no doubt that if houses are proven to be necessary beyond that supporting Local Needs, and must be built, then site H18 appears well sited being situated in a position to make full use of the expensively upgraded A130. This main highway has the ability to take vehicles efficiently away from and to the Borough.

It will also be argued however, as does the Glebelands site!

Further investigative work on the potential  and possibility of site H18 was agreed upon by Task and Finish group members.

Whilst the Lead Group of councillors hold a working majority, I understand that amongst them, there remains support for the draft new Local Plan in its current form.

For H18 to be brought forward, the current version of the Plan would require some substantial alteration.

Whilst Cllr Dick gave his support and sought explanations, three of the four Lead Group members remained noticeably silent during the whole meeting, only at the very last moment did one of the three request clarification on a point.

This leads us to assume that support for this change of direction in the Plan process may need support from either the UKIP, Canvey Island Independent Party and / or the Independent councillors to be successful.

The Canvey Green Belt Campaign group, given the evidence so far, believe that site H18 the Blinking Owl is of no benefit to Canvey Island residents.

Unless it was to take priority over the Jotmans Farm proposal, based specifically on traffic implications.

This may appear to be an unreasonable position to take to those whose primary concern is not the welfare of Canvey residents.

We would be looking for a major change in the Castle Point Borough Council’s approach to the Sequential Test before any support for Site H18. We make it clear that councillors, of whichever party, will be criticised if support is given to H18 whilst the Sequential Test retains its existing methodology and application.

CPBC’s approach is contained in this paragraph;

“Whilst applying the general policy of directing development away from areas at higher risk of flooding, it recognises that there are some areas around the Thames Estuary that are already substantially developed, and may require additional development to occur in the future in order to support the creation of sustainable communities”

The NPPF is clear, the Sequential Test should be applied Borough-wide.

Castle Point is a small Borough, to apply the Test under the selected criteria makes a nonsense of the true intention of the purpose of the Sequential Test!

In its most crudest terms it is implying that because we have already substantially developed Canvey Island, (remember this has only come about since the formation of Castle Point as a Borough), then we must continue to add to the levels of development!

Therefore we can only point out that H18 may well alleviate some of the pressure on mainland Green Belt sites and wish CPBC well in their aims.

For councillors to expect Canvey Green Belt Campaign group and Canvey residents support and backing for H18, then a re-visit of the flawed method of Sequentially Testing sites is an essential requirement.

We are not against the redevelopment of Canvey sites providing there is no increase in flood risk etc, so that local developers can continue to survive, and the redevelopment of single storey dwellings into two storeys is sensible.

What cannot be tolerated is the lengths that are gone to, to make badly sited proposals appear acceptable just to appease “Local Factors.”

Canvey Island has three Constraints to development, Green Belt, Flood Risk and the Hazardous Industries.

At the risk of receiving a barrage of complaint we say: CPBC, recognise this, apply this, and we will unreservedly give our support once it is recorded on paper.

Advertisements

One response to “The Blinking Owl – Canvey, giving our wholehearted support – the Price to Pay!

  1. Planning Advisory Service
    Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets
    Technical advice note
    June 2014
    This subject matter although having no official status provides informal advice that will be useful to those concerned with CPBC new local plan.

    The following extract is a good example of a salient point:-

    “APPENDIX A WHAT IS HOUSING NEED?
    Meanings of ‘need’
    In everyday language, ‘need’ is generally used as a normative (prescriptive) term – referring to what ought to be (e.g. ‘we need to provide a school place for every child’; ‘to measure something we first need to understand what it is’). Therefore it might be thought that ‘housing need’ is the housing that the development plan ought to provide for, having regard to all relevant considerations, including market demand, social policy, environmental impacts, infrastructure capacity and so forth. This broad definition does linger in some minds when housing policy is being discussed. But it is far from the meaning of the NPPF. As we have seen, in the Framework as clarified by the PG ‘need’ is nothing to do with supply-side constraints like the environment and infrastructure. We are advised that planning must first assess need, and then look at supply-side constraints to determine how much of that need can be met in particular places.
    A narrower interpretation of ‘need’ as ‘ought’ is more relevant. In that interpretation, ‘need’ is synonymous with ‘social need’: things that people ought to have but cannot afford without help (e.g. ‘people in need’, ‘areas of need’). As applied to housing, this means the affordable sector.”

    I hope that this is helpful however I strongly advise that the whole document is worthy of interest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s