The Castle Point Borough Council planning Devil is in the Detail!

The devil is in the detail, is an idiom that Castle Point Council appear to rely on where development approvals on Canvey Island are concerned!

Far too often development proposal comments by consultees are taken at face value in the support of approval recommendations of the “professional” officers.

Rarely do development Committee members challenge the points of recommendation, simply because of a lack of alternative information.

Within proposal consideration for Calor and Oikos will often be the Health and Safety Executive comment; “Do not Advise Against”.

Within a recent appeal inquiry in Oxford a Do not advise against comment was made by the HSE in regard to a development near a Hazardous site.

However the local authority, UNLIKE Castle Point felt they should seek independent advice, rather than rely on untrained officers taking the HSE at their exact word. The advisor to the Oxford council considered that;

Do not advise against is not the same as saying planning permission must be granted. 

Overall the HSE methodology is designed to identify sites where the HSE feels obliged to advise against planning permission.

However, their only other advice category of do not advise against is not equivalent to supporting the application being granted.

As already established it is quite legitimate for a local planning authority to take a different view on the merits of granting planning permission, so long as the HSE’s advice has been taken into account.

That the HSE disputed some of the advisors comments, was not disputed, what is relevant is that the local authority had attempted to seek objective advice that may not be available amongst local authority officers.

The development in question, is in a less significant Flood Risk Area than that of Canvey Island.

The local authority in Oxford have a shortfall in housing land and under estimated their Objectively Assessed housing need, as is likely to be found in the case of Castle Point’s local plan 2016.

Despite this and the fact that the site in question was for a great deal fewer dwellings than in the case of Thorney Bay, the Oxford local authority turned down the application.

Castle Point of course have approved in principle outline permission for 600 dwellings, a residential institution plus the retention of static caravans and included these numbers within their daft New Local Plan and Local Plan 2016!

This despite the developer having relied on quoting the CPBC’s previous consideration: “The most recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (2011)  indicates a potential range for dwelling units for the site between 378 and 595”

All based upon them achieving a “do not advise against” response from the HSE.

The Environment Agency acknowledge an agreement with Castle Point council in which Canvey is to be treated as a Special Case where Flood Risk and housing development needs for the whole Borough is concerned!

Canvey representatives really do need to start reading the SMALL PRINT where planning proposals are concerned!

  Footnote: Neither of the local Parish nor Town councils concerned in the Oxford case have given any indication that they intend to produce a Neighbourhood plan.  No evidence was submitted of any preliminary works in this regard. 


3 responses to “The Castle Point Borough Council planning Devil is in the Detail!

  1. If you are interested I am nearing the end of a my questioning of planning depth, MP and councillors on the planning committee, into the resent Oikos planning application, I would be happy to share my findings with you.

  2. Editor
    Let this be a lesson to all. If expert advice is called upon it is imperative that it withstands cross- examination.

    178. The HSE is surprised that the Council has appeared to base its planning decision (for the 260 dwelling scheme) and its appeal case primarily on the advice of Professor Nathanail, rather than on a formal consultation with the HSE; particularly as the HSE pointed-out various matters in Professor Nathanail’s evidence with which it did not agree; and particularly as the Professor himself acknowledged in cross-examination that his predominant experience has been in environmental risk assessment, geology and contaminated land, with relatively less of his professional experience having been in the field of assessing residual risk with which the HSE is concerned. In addition, he admitted he had not visited the Flogas site. If, and to the extent that, the Council has given primacy to the Professor’s views over the statutory advice of the HSE, the Secretary of State is invited not to follow the Council’s approach in this respect and to apply the principles firmly enshrined in the Tandridge and Wolverhampton cases. As a matter of law, the position remains that great weight must be placed on the HSE’s advice and to its own evaluation of the acceptability of risk in relation to the proposals.

  3. One should also remember that irrespective of any comment from the HSE it is responsibility of the LPA to consider societal risk, “Do not advise Against” does not mean that the LPA have no further safety issues to consider.

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