Nine Reasons to Object to the Holland Avenue Green Belt Development

Holland Avenue, Dutch Village Estate, Canvey Island proposed development.

To object to the Council over this proposal, click on this LINK then simply click on “Make a Comment” on the right hand side of the Page you are taken to.

Reasons for Refusal.

  1. Proposal is contrary to the Emerging Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan
  2. Proposal is contrary to the Existing Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan
  3. Proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework regarding Green Belt
  4. Sustainable Urban Drainage proposed scheme, is inadequate
  5. Increase in off-site Flood Risk to Neighbouring Properties
  6. Tidal Flood Risk. Development will increase the numbers of population at Risk of Tidal Flooding
  7. Loss of Amenity of an Informal Activity Area for children
IMG_0156 (2)
8. Loss of an important developing Wildlife Habitat
9. Inadequate Access via unmade Roads that will place increased liabilities upon existing    Residents
IMG_0324 (2)
Advertisements

6 responses to “Nine Reasons to Object to the Holland Avenue Green Belt Development

  1. Editor
    Hopefully you will allow this response from Essex County Council to be viewed as an indication as to what they expect of CPBC.
    Not only to seek advice on but take responsibility for their decision making process with regards to flood risk!

    “I can confirm that from the 6th April this year the Government made clear the expectation that SuDS should be provided in all developments where appropriate. As the Lead Local Flood Authority we became a statutory consultee to all major developments (10+ homes) from the 15th April.

    The government guidance does include for the viability of SuDS to be argued. We would still insist on some form of SuDS system being provided to the extent that it does not make the development unviable. In terms of where we would stand in insisting on the original SuDS proposed this would ultimately be the decision of the Local Planning Authority, and as this situation has not arisen yet I can’t say what we would advise the LPA but we would be sure to check the information provided very carefully if it is being used as a reason to not include SuDS.

    Dependent on the situation, proposals for housing developments could be considered based mainly on desk-based research. However, a topographical survey is nearly always provided upfront to identify the current catchment areas and runoff destination. If there is groundwater level data from a nearby site then we could condition the need for on-site level monitoring to be undertaken at a later date. Similarly if the developer can demonstrate that here is viable drainage strategy that does not rely on infiltration then we can require on-site infiltration test results by condition. However, if the drainage strategy assumed a level of infiltration to dispose of surface water then we would require infiltration test results up-front”.

    Clearly CPBC are the responsible authority, that responsibility will have consequences, should surrounding properties incur flooding issues as a consequence of their granting planning permission.

  2. Robert Hallett

    I absolutely agree with your reasoning .That small wooded area is home to wild life ,plus gives shelter from north wind.

  3. More houses when the island can’t cope as it is , not a good idea what so ever

  4. Reblogged this on and commented:

    Any resident wishing to object to this Green Belt proposal should be aware that the closing date for final comment is this TUESDAY 22nd MARCH!

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