No “X” for Remain or Exit on this issue for Canvey Islanders, our fate rests with the Few!

So all of us Remainers and Brexiteers went to the Polling Stations in incredible numbers, to add our “X” where we were certain, in our “educated” opinion, would leave the UK and our own future in the safest position.

But how many of us Canvey residents display interest in, or are even aware of a decision that may have a far greater impact on our future that will take place on Tuesday the 2nd August?

The 13 men and women that serve as the CPBC Development Committee, will debate and decide on the OIKOS proposal to;

“Construction of a new deep water jetty facility consisting of the refurbishment of and extension to the existing OSL Jetty, refurbishment of an existing 12 tank storage compound.

The proposal, hereafter referred to as the Oikos Deep Water Jetty, (ODWJ), seeks to facilitate the berthing of larger vessels at the site by extending Jetty No.2 into deeper water and carrying out improvements to the safety of operations on the site through the replacement and renewal of infrastructure within the site to current safety standards.
Once the ODWJ proposal is in operation it will have a berth facility able to accommodate a range of vessels up to and including 120,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT) tankers. It is estimated that as a result of the ODWJ proposals, approximately 36 vessels per year, on average 3 vessels per month, will use the new extended Jetty 2 when it becomes operational.”

So clearly a massive investment, but for what purpose?

“The overall operation of the terminal will remain the same, product will continue to be unloaded from the berthed vessels via pipelines that run along the jetties, pumped into storage tanks and then transferred from the site by underground pipeline. Jetty 2 and Compound 4 will operate on a 24 hour/seven day a week basis, which is consistent with the operation of the rest of the OSL terminal.”

The Agenda paperwork explores the Environmental Impact this operation will have locally but it appears that in the national interest any damaging effects will be outweighed.

The sites operatives will point out that they already hold consent to handle the levels of substances intended and therefore will be storing previously agreed volumes.

They will claim therefore there is no increase upon the previously permitted levels of storage of hazardous substances.

However the previously stored quantities have actually been of much lower hazard.

The definite implication is that the new products intended to be stored are of a previously unmatched level of hazard.

This brings into question, what levels of hazardous activity is to be carried out that Canvey Island residents are expected to accept without question!

These 13 CPBC residents representatives have a huge responsibility on their shoulders. Even if the opportunity to Reject the proposal is not within their remit, then at least opposition should be registered and the potential impact on the population should be registered.

They will be informed by a 102 page agenda report, we assume compiled by the case officer, who recommends APPROVAL.

No doubt one or two development committee members will claim some expertise in this field.

Cumulatively the officers and committee will probably be out of their comfort zone and their depth.

OIKOS have permission, there is an emergency plan;


Speaking to residents living nearby, we learn that they are concerned at the effectiveness of the local emergency plan, the disturbance level during construction work and their own safety.

They have expressed in terms similar to;

“Good to see that supplying a bit more petroleum for the already over congested UK is far more important than the rights and wellbeing of the local population – residents concerns over construction methods have been ignored on the basis of cost”

“Time to move I think!”

“I think I might sell as well not so much the safety issues etc but at least 2 years of sustained noise pollution etc”

It is clear these issues are causing clear concerns amongst residents who have attempted to inform themselves.

It was interesting to note the objection of the Canvey Island Town Council planning committee, in which few reasons for objection were recorded, but object they did!

Quite clearly Canvey residents are ill informed.

It pays CPBC for whatever reason to keep us that way!

We should be alarmed, more so than being concerned about being apart of, or from Europe.

But we are NOT, we are viewed as being better off ill informed and in the dark, why!

Have the lessons from Buncefield not been learned?

Hazardous Industries and residents, do not make good neighbours.

In an assumed moment of profoundness one of the 13 committee members posted on social media this week, a quotation by Derek Bok;

“If you think education is expensive try ignorance.”

Let us hope for Canvey’s sake that we have the right people elected and in place!


8 responses to “No “X” for Remain or Exit on this issue for Canvey Islanders, our fate rests with the Few!

  1. Good article everybody should urgently write or email every member of the Development Control Committee and register their disapproval and insist they represent the views of the electorate and refuse this application

  2. As usual Canvey people have no say increasing the hazardous on the island. Our house prices will certainly drop. If it goes ahead I will sell up.

    • Dear Mrs Williams, Thank you for your comment. The Blog posts are not intended to scare monger. We believe an informed public will be a public more capable of responding correctly to any mishaps or major accidents. The authorities position is to limit information. This cannot possibly be of assistance. The residents of Canvey Island are not fools.
      House prices already allow for the issues affecting Canvey Island, we believe it is not just those nearby the Hazardous sites that may be affected by an accident, the effects could be far reaching!
      We believe that the authorities would be unable to cope with the numbers of people at Risk. To add more development and thereby increase the population is unacceptable in the circumstances.
      The need for a Persons at Risk register is obvious, why the local authority has not undertaken this exercise is unknown. There appears little appetite amongst our representatives to press for this useful instrument should an incident of any type was to take place.

  3. Steve Sawkins

    The Oikos hazardous fuel storage facility has been granted a licence to store huge amounts of hazardous fuels in all areas of it site. This licence was recently renewed supposedly for a lesser amount than previously granted under licence in 1992. Even more recently there has been a request for a variation of hazardous substances stored which again was granted by Castle Points Hazardous Substance Authority which happens to be the same Councillors that are on the Planning Committee.

    What is curious is that Oikos has for a number of years under permit issued by the Environment Agency operated as the Oikos Storage Waste Treatment Facility, again covering the whole site at a maximum quantity of 237,750 tonnes annual throughput.

    It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the Oikos site has for a considerable time not stored the types and amounts of highly hazardous materials as this planning application is making provisions for, on the basis that these processes are incompatible and that you cannot use the same storage facilities twice!

    This fact has been overlooked when considering the increase of Hazard and the additional increase in the activity of handling hazardous materials culminating in the increase in Risk.

    In regard to emergency planning the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) regulations distinguish between generic and specific plans.

    Similarly, in relation to the duty to have arrangements to warn, inform and advise the public, the regulations recognise that these may be generic or specific. Which arrangements are chosen will depend on the type of emergency being planned for and the particular circumstances within a locality.

    Given the known ramifications of a Buncefield type incident and the information provided by COMAH site Safety Reports this should alert the Authorities Emergency Planners to the fact that the only known plan available to the community of Canvey Island of “Go-in, Tune in and Stay in” is in some cases now overwhelmingly inappropriate!

    Both Essex County Council and Castle Point Council are aware that they are under a duty to comply with the CCA and a failure to do so will leave both Authorities exposed to a legal challenge.

    The risk is, being found to be unprepared for foreseeable incidents culminating in greater property damage or worse still the increase in personal injury and death.

    In such circumstances, the Human Rights Act could be engaged and individuals who suffer as a result of the Authorities failure to implement appropriate emergency planning strategies could have, (arising under breaches of Article 1 – right to life and article 8- right to peaceful enjoyment of family life) a case.

  4. sandra amey-martin

    Do we have contact details to register our opposition?

    • Sorry Sandra the consultation closed a while ago.
      However, an email to the councillors on the CPBC Development Committee will allow them your views.
      Their details are on the CPBC website

  5. In respect to the week end working if remember correctly section 60 environmental laws have restrictions on noise pollution and the times of day this can be actioned. I presume these regulations will be enforced to protect those residents affected by the proposed works.We the residents of Canvey also have a right to know what effects and safety proposals will be put in place in the event of a spillage. In the event of a fire at the installation will Oikos be equipped to deal with such an event and not be reliant on local fire services.last but not least should Oikos assist with the funding of Ross Common way to be continued as a second road off the island up to the a 13 junction, in respect to the high usage of there vehicles ect.

  6. Editor
    Page 90 of the supporting application document for the Oikos application state the following :-

    Operational Risks
    A number of local residents have objected to the current proposal on the basis of concerns over health and safety, the perception being that the introduction of a new deep water jetty and new replacement storage tanks would increase the operational risks associated with the site.
    The first point to note in this regard is that the site already benefits from consent for the storage of 242,391 tonnes (292,237m3) of petroleum and related products within the existing tanks. The current proposal does not alter this consent, although it will be necessary to enlarge the area of
    consent to include the extended jetty in due course.

    This emphasises the point I made earlier in that these existing tanks have previously held substances of a much lesser hazard whilst the site was operating as a Storage Waste Treatment Plant.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s