Tag Archives: Buncefield video

China Crisis = Answer to Canvey Island issues? Or – Castle Point’s Broken Local Plan Process “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary”???

“The continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement.”

So say, Castle Point borough council planning officers in their programmed approach to avoiding objections to each and every proposal for development on Canvey Island.

This programmed response, supporting perpetual development, is in respect of evading opposition and objection to the “Special Case” position the officers are ordered to adopt in consideration of Canvey’s Flood Risk Exception test.

Whilst Constraints on development in other areas of the borough are sited and strictly adhered to, as a matter of policy, similar approach to Canvey Island proposals appear less rigorously imposed.

Given that Canvey development should be constrained by the fact that the Island is a tidal Flood Risk Zone 3a area, is now deemed a Critical Drainage Area following the surface water flooding during 2014 and previously, as well as being the location of 2 Top Tier Comah hazardous industrial sites.

That there is only one access / egress point, that the Island’s dedicated Rapid Response (paramedic) Vehicle is being withdrawn and that, like other areas the Police and the Fire and Rescue service presence has diminished.

These factors, one would think given Canvey Island’s geographical position, may cause outsiders to wonder why castle point borough council planning department should be so manipulative, when they recite such Unsound Drivel as “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement”!

Higher up the local government ladder the planning department superiors have indentified in contrast, that on tidal Flood Risk alone, they consider that the population of Canvey Island should be limited to the level prior to 2011, OR LESS!

However cpbc Cabinet, Councillors, Officers and Planners ALL choose to ignore this apparently sensible and cautious approach to Housing Numbers, one can only assume, so as to limit the levels of apparently necessary, but unpopular, Housing Need elsewhere in the Borough!

Now whilst our local “public servants” propose and impose yet more development, both Housing and Industrial, onto Canvey Island under the pretext that, “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement” they would do well to appreciate what is going on far from here.

Local decision makers, in their desperation to support the Borough’s income stream and limit the perceived Housing Need on the mainland, are willing to overlook potential Hazards and Constraints that should, by Rights, limit the ever-increasing Canvey Island Population Growth, through the means of our broken Local Plan process!

This Blindfolded and Wreckless approach to Development Planning on Canvey Island, has directly led to the flooding of many properties during 2013 / 2014, and is continued unabated, despite the clear warning towards adoption of a more cautious approach following the Calor escape of 163 tonnes of liquified gas forming a  vapour cloud over the Island!

Whilst the efforts of the Essex Fire and Rescue Service to convince cpbc members that their vastly reduced level of cover for Canvey Island would be adequate in the event of a major accident at either of the 2 Hazardous sites, their claim should not serve as supporting evidence for continually increasing the Population of Canvey.

Castle Point, we believe, would be totally justified in adopting a Limited Population Approach to its Housing Supply through its Local Plan Process, especially where Canvey Island is concerned.

This approach would be fully justified and would protect local builders and developers alike.

An ever-increasing population has little or no justification in any of the reasons recited by cpbc in its flimsy evidence to direct the levels of development growth towards Canvey Island, indicated in their various versions of failed Local Plans .

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It is Amazing then to discover that a Far Eastern Country should have adopted a Plan that puts concerns for its Population and Environment first, by recognising the Need to Limit Population Levels.

Whilst we do not compare the population levels of Shanghai and Canvey Island, it does indicate that limiting population, rather than the contrived reasoning behind the proposal for the ever-increasing population numbers policy, as applied by Castle Point Council Strategic and Local Planners!

 “China’s financial hub of Shanghai will limit its population to 25 million people by 2035 as part of a quest to manage “big city disease”, authorities have said.

The State Council said on its website late on Monday the goal to control the size of the city was part of Shanghai’s masterplan for 2017-2035, which the government body had approved.
“By 2035, the resident population in Shanghai will be controlled at around 25 million and the total amount of land made available for construction will not exceed 3,200 square kilometres,” it said.
State media has defined “big city disease” as arising when a megacity becomes plagued with environmental pollution, traffic congestion and a shortage of public services, including education and medical care.

But some experts doubt the feasibility of the plans, with one researcher at a Chinese government thinktank describing the scheme as “unpractical and against the social development trend”.
Migrant workers and the city’s poor would suffer the most, predicted Liang Zhongtang last year in an interview with state media, when Shanghai’s target was being drafted.

The government set a similar limit for Beijing in September, declaring the city’s population should not exceed 23 million by 2020. Beijing had a population of 21.5 million in 2014. Officials also want to reduce the population of six core districts by 15% compared with 2014 levels.
To help achieve this goal authorities said in April some government agencies, state-owned companies and other “non-core” functions of the Chinese capital would be moved to a newly created city about 100 kilometres south of Beijing.
An exact date for when those offices will have to move has not been set, but Beijing officials have already begun reshaping the city’s population.

Tens of thousands of migrant workers were evicted from their homes beginning in November, after authorities launches a 40-day crackdown on unsafe buildings in the wake of a fire.
Many of China’s biggest cities also face surging house prices, stirring fears of a property bubble. Beijing and Shanghai have enacted strict rules on who can purchase property and the two cities are the most vulnerable if prices begin to tumble.
Shanghai had a permanent population of 24.15 million at the end of 2015, the official Xinhua news agency said last year.
The city has also said it would intensify efforts to protect the environment and historic sites as part of its masterplan.” *

As a further reminder, we make no apologies for reminding readers of the devastating effects on households Hazardous Accidents have the potential to cause, as seen in this Video recording.

Grateful thanks go to Ian Silverstein for use of his video.

*Report filed for the Guardian by; Benjamin Haas in Hong Kong and agencies
Tue 26 Dec ‘17
Reuters contributed to this report

And for those who have read this far, here is a link to some music – China Crisis’ recording of “Wishful Thinking”.

We thought the title appropriate!


“Dear John” Letter from the HSE to Castle Point Council spells a loss of Trust over Thorney Bay!

“WOULD NOT ADVISE AGAINST” Is a phrase that is akin to music to Castle Point Planners ears!

So often does it extinguish any questioning by planning committee members of the extra conditional advice from the HSE, or the Environment Agency, or the Lead Local Flood Authority, when the committee consider Canvey planning applications!

At the Risk of being accused of Scare-mongering, and unlike some that “run with the fox AND hunt with the hounds”,  we prefer to refer to our approach to development as being Cautious, when we refer to Canvey’s constraint issues.

The proposal for the first phase of the Thorney Bay Housing development, cpbc planning application No: 14/0620/FUL, to sit alongside existing caravans is progressing, albeit in an apparently unusual sequence. Given the obvious issue of the neighbouring Calor, Top Tier Comah site, one would have thought that Castle point planners would have made early use of the Health and Safety Executive’s online planning advice app.

It appears however that despite cpbc receiving the planning proposal on the 6th November 2014, no such enquiry was made to the HSE, until the 12th January 2017!

Whilst an initial use of the HSE planning app was made for the original “proposal in principle,” cpbc planning application No: CPT/707/11/OUT, of 600 dwellings plus residential care homes, lodged with cpbc as long ago as 2011, this resulted in an acceptance that 10%, or 60, of the total number of dwellings could be developed within what is labelled the hazardous “middle zone”.

The more “recent” application, for 113 dwellings, sought to use a proportion of the 60 dwellings allowed, sited in the “middle zone,” BUT at a much higher proportion, in relation to the latest planning application, of over 26% !

Rather surprisingly this did not appear to occur to OUR local authority that they might just possibly feel they should refer this percentage level to the HSE!

The developer may indicate the future development phases will have a much lower level of percentage dwellings in the hazardous “middle zone”.

They MAY also find in future these development phases prove unviable without similar high percentage rates, 26%, within the “middle zone,” and having set a precedent within the first phase who could argue?

This seeks higher density development across the whole site, something that would suit developer and the cpbc Local Plan authors equally!

It is somewhat reassuring that the Health and Safety Executive appear to have lost faith in castle point council and with their policy approach towards increasing new residents risk to the exposure to the Hazardous Site.

The HSE have dictated to cpbc that they no longer can take advantage of the HSE’s online Planning Advice App, they have decreed that in future, NOT ONLY ALL future Thorney Bay planning applications which propose development in the “middle zone” must be referred directly to the HSE, but that the 30 dwellings proposed within the current application, is the TOTAL number they will permit!

It appears that Castle Point Council have, at least where the HSE is concerned, used the “Canvey is a Special Case” card once too often!

For those with a more sceptical attitude, we suggest the same may also have led to the problems at Buncefield which led to the events recorded in this resident’s video recording below.

Hindsight can be a wonderful thing, but in the meantime Caution may be the better option and it will be interesting to learn how the cpbc Local Plan Inspector views this approach, should the Plan reach the Examination stage and of course to observe the cpbc development committee’s consideration of the proposal.

 Grateful thanks go to Ian Silverstein for use of his video.

What a whiff of gas in the Canvey air has uncovered.

The Echo today reports on concerns of Canvey residents following the leakage from Calor Gas last week.

Many issues of concern appear to have been brought to the surface; the lack of information, the lack of a warning system similar to that offered by the Environment Agency should flooding be forecast, the removal of the Canvey warning sirens, the lack of Full Time Fire and Rescue Crews on the Island, and the impossibility of an efficient emergency evacuation of residents.

Castle Point Council insist the emergency plan must remain confidential as it contains sensitive information. It must remain secret as if it were to bee made public information contained within may threaten the security and safety of the site, its staff and local residents.

Despite this Castle Point Council are content to make information and the position of tanks and their purpose for use, available for all on their Planning Portal, in the case of OIKOS!

Testing of the emergency procedures are scheduled to take place in October to satisfy regulations. However these are only a “desk top” exercise.


Essex County Council appear to feel that the correct approach were potential major accidents are concerned is to keep Canvey residents uninformed. The approach appears to be, to hope the worst, never happens!

This is not a grown up, responsible and sound way to treat the residents and future residents of Canvey Island!

For the County Council to suggest that “the offsite effects of a major accident (at either, or both, Calor Gas and OIKOS) would be very limited,” is irresponsible to say the least!

We thought lessons had been learned from the Buncefield, Hertfordshire incident in 2005, little sign that Castle Point and Essex County Council accept what just might, might happen to Canvey.


The proverbial way mushrooms are grown: “Keep them in the dark and feed them with s**t”

Similar to the threat from Tidal Flooding and Surface Water flooding we are fed assurances that it will never happen to Canvey Island. A quick watch of a Buncefield resident’s video of the effects on his property and the aftermath of that incident should leave you hoping that Castle Point Council, Essex County Council and the first responders are well prepared.

It should also leave you wishing to know how best to respond should similar happen on Canvey Island.

Grateful thanks go to Ian Silverstein for use of his video.

Maurice Richmond wrote in the Echo:

WORRIED families on Canvey claim they have been left in the dark over what to do in the event of a major emergency.

It comes as dozens of residents reported a strong smell of gas in Long Road and Fairlop Avenue areas of the island last Thursday afternoon, prompting them to call both Calor Gas and National Grid in search of answers.

Calor Gas, in Thames Road, confirmed that the smell was caused by a small gas leak with an additive designed to give gas a detectable odour and was in fact harmless.

However despite this, campaigners are worried that a “lack of public information” is putting their safety at risk in the event of a major incident at either one of the island’s top-tier hazardous sites – Calor Gas and OIKOS terminals in Haven Road,

Aresident, of Janette Avenue, lives near to the OIKOS terminal and says he has very limited information on how an evacuation.

He said: “The only thing that we have been told to do is to switch off electricity and gas and to close our windows and wait for information on a wind up radio.

“That doesn’t say how we can evacuate the island in an emergency and even then only some of my neighbours actually know about this. Years ago there was a document telling us what to do, which was called “Advice to Householders.” It documented Canvey Island’s Emergency Procedure.

“I want to know what has happened to it, and what we should be doing if there is a major incident.

Under Health and Safety Executive guidance for Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 2015 it states that local authorities “must consult the public” when preparing the external emergency plan.”

The regulations add that “a local authority in whose administrative area an upper tier establishment is situated must prepare an external emergency plan specifying the measures to be taken outside the establishment.”

A 61 year old resident, of Haven Road is angry about the lack of information that is available from authorities Suffolk, Plymouth and Medway, but not for Canvey.

Increase in Hazardous Activity and reduction in Emergency Fire Cover for Canvey Island!

Just like an Insurance Policy, you want Fire and Rescue cover, but hope that you Never, Ever have to Call upon it!

That appears the reasoning behind the next lot of cuts to the, already depleted, Castle Point cover of the Essex Fire and Rescue Service.

With three major road arteries in the Borough and two Top Tier COMAH sites on Canvey Island, it appears residents only have our local councillors word that we can sleep safely of a night.

 Just over 6 years ago a major gas leak occurred from Calor at Canvey Island, which only by good fortune, did not find a source of ignition!

The 163-tonne leak happened while a ship was unloading gas to the site.

Now we learn of an increase in the current levels of Hazardous Activity to be carried out at the nearby OIKOS site.

Currently there are plans lodged by OIKOS, at their liquid bulk import and storage facility on Canvey Island, with Castle Point Council for a new deep water jetty.

The jetty will allow fully laden tankers of up to 16.2m draught to berth at the jetty (subject to tidal restrictions) to remain alongside for a period of 24 hours while discharging cargo.

Vessels up to and including a 120,000 DWT tanker, approximately 277metres in length overall with a beam of 44.7m may then be able to use the facility.

Our local councillors report their being satisfied with the level of cover left after this latest Fire Service cut. However Canvey Town Councillors have objected to the OIKOS planning proposal giving one reason for objection as Fear of Terrorism! Surely a contradiction.

A different view to that which was being given out not so long ago in 2011, when we were being invited to join the failed fight to retain the Full Time Canvey staff, before they were replaced by part time cover.

PARTY allegiances have been thrown aside as politicians of all colours rally to protect Canvey’s under-threat firefighters.

Castle Point’s Tory MP Rebecca Harris has criticised cost-saving proposals to replace full-time cover at the island’s Long Road fire station with a retained crew.

Meanwhile, Canvey Island Independent Party has launched a petition opposing the proposals.

Essex County Fire and Rescue Service plans to replace the station’s 25 firefighters with a part-time crew as part of a £10million cost-cutting programme across the county.

At that time MP Rebecca Harris said: “I am very unhappy about any proposal to downgrade the service on Canvey.

“We are going to fight hard to make sure we keep a full-time service on the island.

“When you think of the sensitivity on Canvey about it being an island with difficult access, then it’s clear what the concerns of the residents are.”

Whilst the Canvey Island Independent Party is hoping residents will get behind the petition, which will be distributed to Canvey shops and garages for people to sign.

Dave Blackwell, the party’s leader, worries retained firefighters would be unable to cope on Canvey.

As a reminder, we will make no apology for once again including the video of how a resident was left affected by the Buncefield incident, and pray that we never witness the like on Canvey Island, because for certain the Rescue response may well be less efficient.

We must hope and trust, should the worst happen, the incident will be within the response capabilities of the rescue service that is retained.

Grateful thanks go to Ian Silverstein for use of his video.


The Echo report on the 2011 Cuts and 20+ comments can be read HERE.

The report on the Calor Gas escape by solicitors Irwin Mitchell can be viewed HERE.

Flood RE and Safety Reports “There are none so blind as those who will not see!

The low turn out of Castle Point residents  during the Borough elections will be viewed as voter apathy towards local authority matters. This is probably acceptable where matters such as dog poo and bus shelters are concerned.

However where matters that potentially may impact upon the well being and harm to the community are concerned, this should be viewed as another matter entirely.

The “it will never happen to me”  attitude setting that has been encouraged where Flood Risk is concerned, came back to bite Canvey residents hard, as we well know in 2013 and 2014. For our Borough representatives and “professional” officers to claim that they thought flooding from the sea was the concern, they never thought it might come from a rain storm, illustrates the type of complacency they allowed themselves to operate under and make decisions by.

The Canvey Green Belt campaign have produced photographic evidence in support of our drainage concerns that have been dismissed by the local authority.

This ignorance and denial of flooding issues, from whichever source, gives CPBC the confidence to identify housing land that may be entirely unsuitable. Note it was chiefly Green Belt reasons that the planning committee focussed on in refusing the Holland Avenue planning application last week.

‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.                                                               

The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’

Despite the Flood RE insurance exhibition being held on Canvey Island just 4 days prior to the planning meeting, and despite this Campaign group’s raising of the flood insurance issue whilst the Holland Avenue proposal was being discussed and our Blog posts on the subject, the committee preferred to spend no time discussing!

Whilst residents do not raise concerns, more should be expected of our representatives, not less. To deny a potential flood insurance issue for all new housing development on the grounds that flooding may never happen again on Canvey, in the knowledge that the “guestimated” £24,500,000 towards drainage infrastructure faults is not available, borders on the irresponsible. For development committee members to not even discuss the matter, is worse!

Build into the situation that the development committee also assume the role of the CPBC Hazardous Substance Authority, genuine concerns should be apparent.

The currents tv news programmes have shown coverage of the harrowing scenes evolving in Canada. The momentous forest fires have seen a coordinated evacuation and a massive effort by the fire services.

Compare that to the local response during the 2014 Canvey flooding. Telephone response lines not being answered due to the “service” being overwhelmed, the Environment Agency operatives unable to even get onto Canvey and the power outages rendering the pumps unable to cope with what water that was able to reach them!

Two years later and the CPBC Scrutiny Report into the flooding remains still to be published!

In the light of this omnishambles, complacency is the last position that should be adopted when we move onto suggest the local authority AND our representatives might wish to consider the issue of Safety Reports.

There is a requirement of all operators of Top Tier COMAH Hazardous Site Installations such as the Calor Gas LPG Storage Site, to provide a comprehensive Safety Report. Reports are summited to the Competent Authority for assessment against the Safety Report Assessment Manual. Once passed through examination the report is made available to Local Authorities, in this case Castle Point Borough Council

An important aspect of this risk based approach to mitigation is to recognise that it is based upon the likelihood of an incident and that should one occur the potential consequences will, in the worst case, extend beyond the land use planning zones in the down wind direction. Thus local authorities off site emergency plans need to be drawn up accordingly. Continued below;

Hazardous Installation Safety Reports are designed and expected to provide additional information than that identified by Consultation Distances and Public Information Zones

The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015
“251 The local authority cannot prepare an external emergency plan for an establishment without obtaining necessary information from the operator. This information will not normally be the entire safety report. The operator should provide that information which is relevant to preparing the external plan, including major accident scenarios and consequences. The operator must provide this information by the date on which the internal plan has to be prepared to comply with regulation 12(2) and should also ensure that any information supplied to the local authority is updated as necessary in the light of any changes.
252 Some establishments may be designated by the competent authority as being part of a ‘domino group’ – establishments where the likelihood or consequences of a major accident may be increased because of the location and proximity of other establishments and the dangerous substances present there. These establishments need special consideration in terms of emergency planning and the testing of the off-site response. The operators in the group must co-operate with each other in supplying any relevant information to the local authority.”

Those parts of the Calor Gas safety report that deal with “The Population at Risk” and the Impact on Population, demonstrate the extent and severity of a credible major accident scenarios which has been modelled to reveal that there is an extensive population likely to be affected. It would seem that this aspect has not been considered when planning application are being deliberated upon by the Castle Point Borough Council Planning Authority, even though they act as the Boroughs Hazardous Substance Authority.

The fundamental principle of the land use planning system is that decision making is the responsibility of the local planning authority, usually the local authority. The planning authority reaches decisions on applications for development in the vicinity of major hazard sites having taken account of relevant social, economic and safety factors and generally determined in accordance with the development plan. The Competent Authority provides the advice about suitability on grounds of safety and environmental impact and its role is as adviser under the requirements of the Seveso III Directive, not as decision maker. We believe the principle of decision making by the CPBC local planning authority should be supported by independent specialist advice in order that the authority’s Land Use Planning decisions can be considered to be, Sound!

Grateful thanks go to Ian Silverstein for use of his video.

Criticism for Canvey Residents Petition + Local Plan2016 voted In by Doubters!

I must say that following the approval of the Local Plan 2016 and the presentation of the magnificent Canvey Residents Petition, some of the criticism towards Canvey and its Residents is a tad unfair!

It appears that the petition has been seen as an attempt by Canvey, in effect to sabotage the progress of Local Plan2016.

Very disappointingly, it is suggested by some that the timing of the Petition’s organisation and its presentation appears to be wrong.

Wrongly, outsiders believe that we, Canvey residents, wish the Government to take over “their” control of the Local Plan2016!

Wrongly, they believe by not developing on Canvey, even more development will be moved onto the mainland.

I say wrongly, because there is no logic to the argument. If an area has development Constraints, that means less housing can take place in the Borough.

CPBC knew this when they acknowledged the Hazardous Industrial sites and Flood Risk as a Canvey Constraint.

What it doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t mean, is for the constrained number not to be applied to the Constrained area, Canvey Island. CPBC have instead applied it across the Housing Need figure for the whole Borough!

For anybody questioning our logic regarding applying Constraints within the areas likely to be affected may wish to take a look at these two short Videos.

The first dramatic video gives just one person’s perspective of how he, his family and his home suffered the devastating effects following the Buncefield incident. Link to the Video HERE.

The other shows the complexity of the surface water drainage system on Canvey Island. Bear in mind this video was compiled prior to the flooding of 2014 and the knowledge of the broken infrastructure of the drainage system, as revealed through the Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage study, and for which there appears no funding for its improvement.  Link to Video HERE.

This flawed drainage system is separate from another Constraint, that of the Flood Risk from Tidal sources.

Grateful that we are that the Dutch Village and the smaller old Castle View School Green Belt sites have been withdrawn from the intended housing supply, we know that this is as a by-product of the new housing site selection policy, rather than a priority of the Plan makers.

After all, the Dutch village and old Castle View School GB sites were THE Borough’s preferred development sites since the early days of the Core Strategy!

Which brings me back to the criticism of the timing of the delivery of the Canvey Residents Petition.

Back in 2009 the Canvey Green Belt Campaign group organised a Referendum over the course of a fortnight. The result a 99%+ vote of some 6,550, in favour of protecting Green Belt from development, delivered ahead of the CPBC SPDG group’s work on the Core Strategy, well before the decision to consult and finalise the Core Strategy document. The same Core Strategy document that featured only Green Belt on Canvey Island.

The response from and impact upon Castle Point Council, was exactly the same as the Residents Petition, IT WAS IGNORED!

Yes, maybe some Canvey residents did become aware of what was planned late in the day, but it wasn’t so long ago the same could be said of mainland residents.

The Residents Petition came from their frustrations, which emerged during a Local Plan information meeting arranged by Cllr Tucker, which was attended by members of the Canvey Green Belt Campaign group (CGBC). Residents felt they wished to create a Petition. The members of the CGBC group in the knowledge of our Referendum response and the way CPBC received it, felt a Petition was of little use (as it turned out).

Nevertheless this is what the Residents wanted as a means of expressing their feelings and CGBC group were asked to assist.

Ironically it was this request for assistance and the CGBC group using their contact details in setting up the CHANGE.ORG online version of the Petition that CPBC used in its claim that it was in fact a Green Belt Petition. Anybody reading the Petition would see that it is clearly not!

However by supporting the Residents  Online Petition Cllr Tucker gave reason for CPBC to rule his exclusion from the Local Plan2016 debate.

Ironically if he hadn’t signed the Petition the current version of the CPBC would have never have been adopted, as it was on reliance of the mayor’s casting vote!

Canvey and its Residents would certainly have received criticism if that was how the Local Plan2016 had been progressed!

We do not wish the Local Plan2016 ill, it appears to be all that the mainland campaign groups desire. Development in areas that they appear to prefer, whilst attempting to protect areas held most dear.

But please allow others to have their own opinions even if they differ from yours. Several senior councillors, whilst voting in favour of the Local Plan2016 did so only after voicing no confidence in its ability to pass Examination.

Many across the chamber appeared, through the debate, to be manoeuvring themselves into a position where, if the Local Plan2016 were to fail, they can say “I told you so”!

Now that is a concern!

Following the years of failing to implement a Plan and the expenses and costs that have been incurred councillors should accept a level of blame.

The Local Plan2016 document is not THE final document, it has been voted to be sent out for consultation (now where have we heard that before?)

All residents and developers have the opportunity to have their say. If nothing else, the delivery of the Residents Petition, just ahead of the Local Plan2016 consultation, is perfectly timed to focus residents attention ahead of the consultation period.

For that we say to the Canvey Residents Petitioners, congratulations and well done Ladies, Gents and the participating Canvey businesses!