Tag Archives: Canvey Green Belt Campaign

The Paddocks no plan, “Project”. Highlighted as an Example for Castle Point Council of How Not To introduce a Plan!

The Paddocks, seemingly a building close to Canvey Islanders hearts, and apparently for which there are no Plans to demolish and replace with a smaller version, with a Housing development on the site.

Paddocks

The Paddocks community centre, Canvey Island

Interesting then that this extract should appear in the cpbc Peer Challenge Report;

“The Paddocks facility on Canvey Island is a clear example where an inclusive approach to developing the Centre will lead to joint ownership and subsequently better outcomes for the community it serves. The Peer Team heard how communities and their representatives are keen to be involved from the earliest stage to final completion, through improved communications and engagement, so that such developments can, where appropriate, be co-designed and fit for the future.”

Clearly the Peer Challenge team identified issues surrounding the way the Paddocks future had been “suggested” to Canvey residents, critically the Report noted:

“The Council would benefit from greater co-operation and joint-working between all councilors,(sic) celebrating the unique places they represent, but also working together to allocate time and resources equally between the different communities. This would involve communities affected by emerging projects from the earliest opportunity to create ownership of the issues, the journey and share pride in the outcomes. An example that could benefit from this more inclusive approach are the issues around the Paddocks Leisure facility. ” 

Whilst the Report was complimentary of cpbc’s handling of finances; “CPBC has sound budgetary processes in place as illustrated through its latest Statement of Accounts”, there appeared much that the Peer Team were critical of.

More to follow from us on the subject.

In the meantime, the full Report can be found HERE.

Riley+marchant

 

Advertisements

Persimmons seek Change of Use of Canvey Island Green Belt Land, with Stable Block for just 3 Horses, whilst Profits impress and Residents unaware!

On first glance it might be puzzling to explain why Canvey Island should be the first choice for Persimmon Homes to expand their successful business interests into the world of Equestrian pursuits at the Dutch Village on Canvey Island!

Persimmon’s profits more than triple over five years to £782.6million in 2016.

And yet they have registered a Planning Proposal with Castle Point borough council;

18/0118/FUL | Erection of stable block with adjoining hay storage/tack room and associated landscaping, formation of access track together with the change of use of land.

Persimmon, this mighty developer, seeks to enter into Equestrianism with a 16+ Hectare site for just 3 horses!

thelwell

Riding Roughshod through Planning Policy

Quite obviously the Change of Use of Land is tactical manoeuvring in preparation for their challenge to the next cpbc Local Plan, Housing Supply and its interpretation of Green Belt Policy.

Either way, should the Dutch Village site become developed with the anticipated 300 dwellings, the infrastructure issues on Canvey Island will be exacerbated.

Health Service, traffic, recreation and Flooding issues will all be worsened, affecting each and every Canvey Island and South Benfleet resident!

The Change of use of Land, should signify a warning to all of the Borough’s Green Belt site neighbours, many of the Borough’s GB sites have some Built Development on them.

CPBC needs to be working on a Red Line to define where GB land changes from their pristine, cherished “virgin” sites to, GB with limited development, before finally becoming Previously developed Green Belt with the same lack of protection as Brownfield sites.

The KEY to ANY Canvey Island development must be that it is, APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT!

Castle Point council must respond in the correct manner to this application. We should all make our thoughts known to the council officers, otherwise Green Belt Policy will be undermined and Canvey Island and Sth.Benfleet residents will suffer.

The Link to the Application to view documents and to make comment is HERE.

Reasons to Object or comment upon could include:

Green Belt Development

as a whole, it should be considered that the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The NPPF identifies that such development may only be permitted under Very Special Circumstances.
NPPF Paragraph 83 instructs “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.”
It can be argued that the “Change of Use of Land” should also only be considered, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan rather than by individual applications.

“All permanent stables and field shelters will require planning permission and, if the land is not in use for the keeping of horses, an application is unlikely to be acceptable.”

The term Very Special Circumstances implies that a desperate “Need” for this facility must be Obvious and Proven, or that there are very few similar facilities in the area.
It should be noted that there are many similar facilities in the local area.

The “facilities are small scale” indeed accommodating a maximum of 3 horses only. This will have no tangible impact on any suggested unmet need for such facilities, even if such need were proven to exist.

The applicant refers to the Purposes of the Green Belt and notes ‘to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas’;
The applicant points out that their intention is to construct “buildings in the Green Belt will give rise to built development”

Archaeological Features

The field abutting the proposed Stable Yard contains the Roman Saltern, a scheduled Ancient Monument, 260m south east of Great Russell Head Farm. This monument is scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 as amended as it appears to the Secretary of State to be of national importance.

Proposed Access

The current access is on a busy dual carriageway, Canvey Road.

The design plans indicate the intention to “set back” the gated entrance 6 metres from the footpath. Whilst this “pull in” may make the actual entry to the field somewhat safer, other Canvey Road field entrances, with similar “pull in”design, have been the subject of serious “Fly Tipping” problems. This has been notably recorded at the entrances to the Canvey West Marsh RSPB site, directly opposite.

Vandalism and the protection from Harm of Horses

The Stable Block would likely act as a “magnet” for vandals being, unlit, housing unattended animals over night, out of sight of passers-by view thereby “secret”, and of wooden construction, containing feed and bedding, all potential fire hazards.*

*Extracted from the Canvey Green Belt Campaign group’s 4 page Objection document.

Illustration with apologies to Thelwell

The Admiral Jellicoe, the Loss of Canvey’s Buildings of Local Interest, and the apparent disinterest of Castle Point Council.

The loss of the Canvey Island Admiral Jellicoe public house is unsurprising.

Admiral Jellicoe

Admiral Jellicoe. Luke Baker Photography.

Indecisive governance in the borough leaves the area unprotected by a Local Plan, and Canvey Island, in particular, almost defenceless against unrestricted development.The Jellicoe site will be re-developed, quite probably with Flats.

But the viability of an affordable housing allocation will be strongly contested! Allowances to be made for Flood Alleviation and the cost allegedly paid for the site will be points of contention. The apparent sale of the Crown public house in Hadleigh Town Centre, a far more attractive proposition for a developer, went for £400,000.

Whilst newspaper reports suggest the Admiral Jellicoe was purchased for £1,000,000.

With a Plan, Local or otherwise, there may have been the potential to insist that a community facility should be built on part of the site alongside a level of affordable housing.

This potential has been lost as the developer would have purchased the site in the knowledge that no restriction exists where cpbc planning control is concerned.

Those concerned at the loss of yet another Canvey Island iconic building should be asking questions of the local authority.

The King Canute is also in danger of destruction, should the contractors accidentally damage the building’s structure! There is a condition imposed by cpbc that states efforts must be made to protect the front and side elevations of the King Canute throughout the re-development, but this was not part of any planning conditions imposed by cpbc officers!

It was only following enquiries by the Canvey Green Belt Campaign group to the development committee chairman and the last minute suggestion during the committee’s consideration that led to the protection condition to be imposed. Officers previously showed NO Concern on the retention of the King Canute “shell”!

And yet cpbc are quick and keen to Harness the “Canvey Community Spirit” when there is gain to be made.

Following the grand work undertaken by two community groups the Canvey beach area is now unrecognisable to its previously unkept state. This has not only advantaged the Sandy Bay development but also opened the door of opportunity for cpbc.

The Canvey, Coastal Communities Alliance is another cpbc scheme seeking to dip into the Coastal Communities Fund dclg general fund. It could be suggested that if not for the excellent, tireless and selfless commitment to the sea front by the Canvey volunteer groups, the potential to chase some of these funds, would not have even occurred to cpbc! We wonder whether these grants, when distributed, are ring-fenced.

Similar to the 6 point plan seeking £24,500,000 government funding for drainage improvements on Canvey Island, which appear to be being less determinedly sought following the government asking for detailed expenditures of work required!

But we digress.

The topic was the continued loss of iconic and important local buildings to development with no public amenity to compensate.

CAMRA’s position in relation to the loss of Pubs states;

“debt-ridden pub property companies (Pubco’s) anxious to sell off pubs; often these are deliberately run down beforehand to make them less commercially attractive to those wishing to take them on as pubs.”

Suggestions have been made by locals that indeed this is what appears to have happened during the final period of the Admiral Jellicoe’s days as a public house.

Castle Point Council is the licencing authority, it could be suggested that they should have taken action once it became apparent that the deliberate Running Down of the business may have been being carried out.

Alongside the lack of a Local Plan for the area this inactivity, or ineptitude, will see more locally important buildings succumb to development with little advantage for residents.

Castle Point council appear more determined where the Crown ex public house, due to be part of the Hadleigh regeneration plan, is concerned.

According to an Echo report in 2011, cpbc were very close to settling a deal for the Crown with the aid of a £175,000 grant from Essex County Council, which had been sold by the brewery to MCC developments following its closure in 2009.

The obvious question arising is what might be the current value of the Crown site, given the apparent £1,000,000 sale of the Admiral Jellicoe, and, should it occur, is this appropriate use of the borough’s funds?

Photograph Copyright: Luke Baker

See more at; http://www.facebook.com/LukeBakerPhotography2017/

Castle Point Councillors – Intervention and Fear, should they continue defying Logic! Local Planning under Duress. UPDATED

Fear and Intimidation appeared to be the message to Canvey Island and Castle Point councillors as they come to consider in Secret, the implications of being listed by Secretary of State Sajid Javid over their lack of progress on a Local Plan, and being  in danger of Government Intervention!

At the December 2017 council meeting the cpbc Chief Executive made clear that unless either good progress is being made regarding the Duty to Cooperate, or clear constraints are recorded in the reply to the Secretary of State as to why progress isn’t being made, Intervention is likely.

The CEO stated that he neither wished to, nor expected to be put in the position of drawing up the new Local Plan, whichever version is now being worked on.

Instead Intervention would likely be taken by an outside body, for instance the Planning Inspectorate, a specialist organisation or perhaps even those south Essex councils working collectively on the Duty to Cooperate.

If it doesn’t already this should Ring Alarm Bells for those Residents living on the mainland!

You may ask why those Residents in particular?

Well, during the cpbc Core Strategy process, during 2009 Baker Associates appointed to consider the Sustainability Assessment on the Housing Site selection process drew attention to their being puzzled, as to why cpbc should overlook choosing for development, the Borough’s Highest Scoring Sustainable site. They wrote;

The review of the outcomes of the site assessment revealed the site scoring highest against the assessment sustainability criteria has not been allocated.

This site is greenfield land to the east of Rayleigh Road.

Neither the DPD or site assessment process gives a justification for this site not being allocated. 

The Sustainability Assessment suggests that the allocation of this site could have preferable implications for sustainable development than other “mainland” allocations.

This Appraisal extract gives clear indication of how a planning consultant, and most likely the Planning Inspectorate would apply a logical approach to Housing Site Allocation, should they be appointed as a Local Plan Intervention measure!

Similarly, as Baker Associates were responding to a cpbc report, one must consider it most likely that a similar approach would be taken by cpbc officers if they were appointed to undertake compiling the next version of the cpbc Local Plan!

An Inspector, should one be required to Intervene and produce a Local Plan may likely produce one completely undesirable to mainland councillors preferences. Remember these comments from an Inspector;

Additional material…

“An exercise was then carried out to objectively assess these sites against a number of criteria. I have reservations about the methodology employed and the way in which it appears to have been used, leading to inconsistent and inappropriate site selection. For example, the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal is unclear as to why the most sustainable Green Belt site was discounted.”

“I therefore consider the Council needs to revisit its assessment of Green Belt locations paying particular regard to the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in PPG2. I accept that other considerations will also influence the choice of sites but potential locations should not be dismissed because local factors are given too much weight. This appears to have happened previously.”

“The Council’s desire to protect its Green Belt areas is understandable but its approach has also had a considerable bearing on the overall distribution of growth promoted in the Core Strategy. In this respect, I consider it would be difficult to endorse a strategy which commits to Green Belt release in an area of potential high flood risk at Canvey Island….”

“While I accept some development at Canvey Island may be required to meet local needs and to support services, I am not convinced that maintaining the current distribution of development across the Borough is justified given the existing constraints.”

The above comments highlight the desired distribution of Housing Growth across “certain” parts of the Borough of lead group members and is indicative of the perceived use of Canvey Island to their retention of control of cpbc.

The latest drive is to seek out Brownfield sites to supply the new Housing Allocation.

The Brownfield site list drawn up by cpbc and included alongside the council meeting’s Agenda paperwork indicated a minimum of 254 dwellings on sites achieving the required criteria.
This supply was contained in Part 1 of the Brownfield Register.

No sites were put forward as being eligible for Part 2 of the Register, those having been granted by cpbc, Permission to develop in Principle.

The chief explanation given for this being;

“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”

img_0802

It appears that behind the scenes there remains a refusal to apply development Constraints equally across the Borough, the focus has been and remains Canvey Island, where development is concerned!

Interestingly no specific reasons for sites in other areas of Castle Point not being granted Permission in Principle and inclusion in Part 2 of the Register were given. Presumably they were covered by the caveat “a decision on whether to grant “Permission in Principle” to a site must be made in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations”

For the record the Brownfield list may, just, fulfil one years development supply of Castle Point’s required 5 Year Housing Supply requirement!

The Paddocks site, was not included in the Brownfield site Register, possibly because, as we were informed by Cllr smith, all options are open and no decision has yet been made whether to demolish or carry out much needed work on the building!

Interestingly during the council meeting a question about the total sum estimated to renovate the Paddocks was raised by Cllr Campagna, to which we the council leader explained that the £1million+ is a figure estimated to be required spending over the next 20 Years, and NOT as we were allowed to believe by Cllr smith at the Canvey Community meeting, required immediately!

The Blinking Owl site, seemingly the answer to the mainland’s Housing Supply requirement is excluded from the Brownfield Register.

This site first made public during March 2014 appears yet to have had a firm development application proposed to cpbc.

A Local Plan Examiner would be more likely to take the Blinking Owl venture seriously, should there have been some development proposals for parts of this site already on the table, but there is not!

Duty to Cooperate work is ongoing with cpbc being represented by the council leader, his deputy and senior officer/s. It appears that officers are applying the results of the DtC work into a newest Local Plan.

Should the efforts of this cpbc delegation be found worthy and Government Intervention be avoided, in the least the cpbc Local Plan will represent a localised extract of a South Essex Regional Plan. Ironically Regional Spatial Strategies were abolished after 6 years in 2010.

The newest Local Plan version may bear severe repercussions should the cpbc council choose not to approve, given the Duty to Cooperate work being carried out by cpbc leader and officers.!

A meeting will be held in secret at cpbc, to presumably inform councillors of the Duty to Cooperate progress and the Fears of Intervention, during this week.

Castle Point is not the only local authority failing to find enough Brownfield site to fulfil their immediate Housing Needs. More can be read via this LINK.

Canvey Dutch Village, Green Belt development back on the Scene!

For those Canvey residents that believe either the CPBC Local Plan consultation is not worth bothering about or that Large Development has gone away, you should be aware that our local council officers and Persimmons have been very busy behind the scenes working on the next Big Spanner in the Works in the Local Plan process!

Whether our “professional” officers should be spending time at our expense continuing to work on planning issues that, at least at present, appear to be clearly outside of the Local Plan 2016 proposals and Planning Guidance, is open to conjecture.

Those that believe a Neigbourhood Plan is too expensive, hard work and time consuming may have also missed an opportunity to have planned for Canvey’s future.

So whilst the Local plan 2016 may show just 760 new dwellings planned for Canvey, let us not forget those other flats and houses on the many small sites across the Island, PLUS whatever other plans that Developers, certain councillors and officers have for our Green Spaces, Plus the two large Industrial developments!

Those that believe the traffic issues have been bad these last few weeks, may need to think again.

IMG_0156 (2)

This email was added to the CPBC Planning Portal this week. It indicates that Persimmon have ditched Pegasus as Agents and have taken the East of Canvey Road, Dutch Village 275 dwelling project, back in-house!

From: Woodger, Mark

Sent: 7 Jun 2016 14:58:04 +0000

To: Kim Fisher;Steve Rogers;Keith Zammit

Dutch Village Canvey Island and Planning Application CPT/15/496

Good afternoon Ms Fisher.
I mail with reference to the above planning application.
As a brief introduction I work as a Senior Planner at Persimmon Homes Essex and have been in post since January.
In the last few months I have been dealing with your colleague Keith Zammit and Steve Rogers but I now understand that you are the lead officer who will be taking this application to Committee.
We’ve also had an organisational change here at Persimmon and we are no longer using Pegasus as our planning agents, it now falls to me to deal with our application. My objective is to see that all technical constraints can be mitigated as part of our proposals. There are currently 2 outstanding issues – Flooding, which has an outstanding objection from the EA and Highways, which have not commented on the application.
We are moving towards resolving these issues and wanted to offer you an update on both matters:
Flooding We have been working with our consultants in consultation with the Environment Agency to overcome what is shown on your website as an objection from the EA on the grounds of flood risk at this time.
It will be known to you that the EA have also recently published some new flood modelling data. This has meant that we have had to do a considerable amount of work to assess and model what impact this has had on our proposals. We have had to look at what mitigation we can put in place to ensure that the site is safe in terms of flood risk, and that our development does not prejudice flooding on any neighbouring sites.
We hope to have the additional details to you within 10 days and this will give you the opportunity to then consult the EA before making your recommendation with all the facts available to you. We have had verbally received approval from the EA for the changes to our proposals following the publication of the new modelling data and are therefore confident that we overcome the current objection.
Highways ECC have yet to issue their consultation response. We are continuing to chase this and have been verbally told they have no concerns and will not be objecting to our proposals.
These works are nearing completion and I would be grateful if we could agree an extension of time now to allow for the application to be presented at the August committee.
Persimmon Homes are committed to the application and your consideration of the above would be of value to us.
Kind regards.
Mark Woodger BSc, Cert Man, MRTPI Senior Planner

Local Plan2016 a little background Reading before you respond to Consultation!

Canvey Island residents will now be receiving their invitations to take part in the Castle Point Local Plan2016 consultation.

Some concerns have been expressed via social media as to how the Plan will impact upon residents daily life.

The Local Plan2016 is at the stage where residents and developers and consultee agencies will expect their input to have an impact upon the final document following Examination by a Planning Inspector.

“Following the consultation, the New Local Plan will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.  Representations will be considered by a Planning Inspector alongside the published Plan.”

In other words, your final opportunity to have some input.

There is no rush to respond.

It may therefore be of interest at this early stage for some who have not followed the Local Plan2016’s progress so far to learn of the background influences that have been exerted in reaching this stage.

Most relevant maybe the consideration of the Castle Point Borough Council Chief Executive, expressed in Council meeting agenda paperwork, in which he expressed these concerns to councillors;

To re-consider the Draft New Local Plan at this stage exposes the Council to the risk of unwelcome development, “planning by appeal”, and potential Government intervention.

6. Risks and Corporate Implications

6.1 Members are referred to the report before Council on 9.12.2015, which were restated on 27.01.2016, which sets out the serious legal, reputational and financial risks at Sections 7 to 9 of the report of 09.12.2015 in failing to take forward a sound Draft New Local Plan. These sections are attached as an Appendix.

6.2 The Council is advised that there is a substantial risk that a Draft New Local Plan amended in the form of either Motion is unlikely to meet the four tests of soundness as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF, which are:

Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

6.3 In addition the Council has a statutory duty to comply with the Duty to Cooperate to ascertain whether the Council’s neighbouring authorities are able to take some of the Council’s unmet housing need. A draft New Local Plan which seeks only a limited ability to meet its housing need will not sit well with neighbouring authorities who are seeking to release green belt sites to meet their own housing needs: to expect those authorities to release even more of their green belt to meet the Council’s unmet need is unrealistic.

Conclusion & Next Steps

7.1. It is clear that Members recognise that the draft New Local Plan needs to be progressed and as a general principle Members oppose the use of Green Belt sites for housing development giving  priority to the protection of the Green Belt above meeting the objectively assessed housing needs of the Borough.

7.2 As stated previously Motion 1(the removal of some Green Belt sites for housing development) is unclear, inconsistent and contradictory suggesting that it is acceptable to leave certain Green Belt Sites within the Draft Local plan but excluding others. Council is reminded any attempt to remove sites that is not supported by evidence will result in the Council’s approach to meeting its housing needs being found unsustainable.

7.3 Motion 2 the removal of all Green Belt sites for housing development presents the least worst option in that it is a clear unambiguous policy statement that the Council’s priority is the protection of the Green Belt and the Council will not allow the use of any green belt sites to meet its objectively assessed housing needs.

7.4 If Council is minded to direct that the draft New Local Plan is amended to reflect either of the two Motions then it is recommended that the Council directs that the Draft New Local Plan be altered to remove all Green Belt housing sites to prioritise protecting Green Belt over meeting the Borough’s objectively assessed housing needs.

Of course the Chief Executives idea of unwelcome Green Belt development may well differ from councillors and residents.

Untitled

That the councillors decided to press ahead with Motion 1 (see above) was their prerogative, as councillors make the decisions.

What we can be sure of is an interesting time ahead.

Only following the Inspector’s consideration will we learn whether councillors have been astute or foolhardy!

 lo

Just Like That! The sleight of hand with Green Belt and Flood Risk at Castle Point.

Once again in a “Now you see it, Now you Don’t” fashion, Castle Point officers reveal their manipulative stranglehold on Local Plan issues.

Previously, during the Core Strategy process they absentmindedly posted a draft copy of the Castle Point Strategic Flood Risk Assessment on the CS Portal. Due to the sensitive and revealing nature of the content, this was quickly removed. Not before the Canvey Green Belt Campaign had secured a copy though!

Tommy Cooper

Just Like That!

Amidst criticism from the Examining Inspector and much embarrassing delay a new Final copy of the Risk Assessment, adulterated by CPBC officers with the compliance of the Environment Agency, was belatedly published.

Now, as the decision approaches regarding whether the daft New Local Plan is worthy of publication or not, a further slip up emerges.

Posted on the CPBC Planning Portal was correspondence from the Pegasus group regarding how they felt the lack of a positive decision on whether to proceed with the current Local Plan at December’s council meeting, may impact upon the Secretary of State’s decision making. They felt a delay in the Local Plan process should be brought to the SoS’s attention.

In response a solicitor at CPBC must have been asked for how she viewed the situation.

Remember, and the webcast is still available to view, two amendments were proposed, in effect halting debate during the December Council meeting, that both needed further research and officer advice before discussion.

The first amendment of cllr Stanley suggested that the Land Availability Assessment was further investigated by our councillors. (?) This was seconded by Cllr Smith who suggested he would sooner have any Plan in place even though it was unpopular with residents as it would keep the Housing numbers lower.

The second amendment of cllr Dick’s, seconded by Cllr Skipp, went further and proposed that all “virgin” Green Belt sites were removed from the Local Plan and consideration given to the housing numbers available following this suggestion.

In the meantime there will obviously be much pressure brought to bear on councillors by officers keen to progress with getting a Local Plan in place.

This pressure on councillors is typified by the CPBC solicitor’s response to the aforementioned letter to the Planning Inspectorate and the SoS.

She wrote;

This is not my recollection in relation to Cllr Dick’s motion, whilst the Mayor said that it would require further advice from officers, my recollection was that decision in relation to publication and submission to the SoS was deferred to enable members to review the sites in the SHLAA, it was not to consider Cllr Dick’s motion to remove all the green belt sites.

I think we need to respond by writing to PINS and Pegasus. The difference is the 2 motions is critical. One we can live with the other we can’t.

In black and white you can see an officer giving an opinion that goes against the Planning Guidance that we have been led to believe has been issued allowing local authorities to protect Green Belt land. It goes further as it states that officers, legally, cannot “live with” the desires and wishes of the residents that employ them.

I am sure that Local Plan’s are not a life or death issue, so it appears a somewhat exaggerated statement to make.

Clearly a move to remove Green Belt from the Local Plan Housing land supply would be most unpopular with developers. This is however no reason to not test out the Government intentions with the Planning Guidance that appears to say Green Belt land can be protected if so desired.

A simple slip of the computer mouse has brought this to residents attention. That it was quickly removed shows the skull-duggery and pressure officers will be exerting on councillors to preserve the daft New Local Plan. The question is what are our councillors made of, are they brave enough to support residents wishes or will they crumble under pressure?

One thing is clear. We, the Canvey Green Belt campaign group, said previously beware what you vote for, to councillors that claimed they had only voted to send this daft New local Plan to consultation.

That was in January 2014, 2 years on and nothing so far has changed!