CPRE confirm Brownfield Housing Site Registers mean Less Green Belt Release! How does Castle Point fare?

The Campaign to Protect Rural England have issued a report claiming that in the South East of England there are enough Brownfield development sites to supply 132,263 deliverable homes.

Additionally they consider that the sum of all local authorities Brownfield sites Register indicates a supply of 1,052,124 homes – this could rise to over 1.1 million once all registers are published, confirming CPRE’s previous estimates.

“More than two-thirds of these homes (are) deliverable within the next five years. Many of these sites are in areas with a high need for housing.
This means that three of the next five years’ worth of Government housing targets could be met through building homes on brownfield land that has already been identified, easing pressures on councils to continue releasing greenfield land unnecessarily and preventing the unnecessary loss of countryside.”

Before Castle Point Green Belt campaigners get too excited, we should remember that our local authority’s contribution, as shown on their Brownfield Register is a List of just 20 sites capable of yielding upwards of 254 new Dwellings across the whole Borough.

Unfortunately, unless we have missed an announcement, there is no Part 2 to the Castle Point Brownfield Register, the Part that grants Permission in Principle to develop.

This appears the “Fault” of Canvey Island, how Unreasonable of the place!

CPBC Agenda paperwork explains; “Furthermore, 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”

Once our local representatives remind the Environment Agency of Canvey Island being a “Special Case”, the usual service should be Resumed!

Of course now that cpbc have entered into a pact with our neighbours, Basildon, Brentwood, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea, and Thurrock Councils, or ASELA, perhaps pressure on Castle point Green Belt will ease.

Within Basildon, Southend and Thurrock, in particular, there may be more Brownfield opportunities for Housing Land supply to be identified. Castle Point being a small borough,  heavily constrained by its Green Belt, compared with these three ASELA members may be able to persuade them to take some of cpbc Housing Needs.

It would be interesting to learn what Castle Point may be able, and willing, to offer in Return!

The Link to the full CPRE Report can be found HERE.


4 responses to “CPRE confirm Brownfield Housing Site Registers mean Less Green Belt Release! How does Castle Point fare?

  1. Hmm let me get this right, applications to develop continue to be approved despite the flood risk classification and the inherent procedures regarding assessment but that same principle is not applied to part 2 of the Brownfield Register – how strange!

  2. Dear Editor,
    The concerns raised over the Brownfield register is less of a concern to me personally because we have the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) which should have most brownfield sites included anyway. The promotion of the brownfield sites availability is probably more important that and the support to encourage development of said sites.
    Of course the SHLAA does not include all available brownfield sites only those that are aware of it or responded to a information request but not all registration request letters reach the owners. Being on the SHLAA or the Brownfield register is not a guarantee of development but are a means of highlighting their possibility of development and yes of course in turn reduce the pressure on our green field greenbelt.

  3. Editor
    Unfortunately CPBC has entered into an association of collective authorities committed to huge number of dwelling in the very near future. Once the so called brownfield sites have been developed where else is there?

    The letter in support of CPBC from the ASELA informs us that via its regional planning process.

    “Our focus is on ensuring the delivery of more than 90,000 homes over the next 20 years across South Essex in the shortest possible time with the necessary infrastructure.
    We recognise and accept that there will be some areas that will find full delivery of their plans more difficult than others. We are committed to working together to help address this and will co-operate across the region, recognising that the opportunities and challenges are not confined within single municipal boundaries”.

    Some believed that CPBCs move towards a regional planning concept via the association process would protect its green belt.
    That may not be the case.

  4. Stan
    You are right to be concerned, this is how it should work.

    “Decisions about the suitability of sites for inclusion in registers must be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. The Framework remains a material consideration in planning decisions and although the introduction of permission in principle will provide a new route for obtaining planning permission there will be no change in the way relevant material considerations are to be considered during the decision-making process”

    CPBC have had its own ideas of how the NPPF and planning guidance interoperates developing flood risk areas.

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 )

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