Tag Archives: Castle Point Borough Council

Smallgains, the next Canvey Green Space Land Grab! Back Office decision highlights Flood Risk Denial in Support of targeting Housing developments onto the Island!

Despite officer reassurances that a Precedent had not been set, when a small grass “walkway” on Canvey Island was handed over to a “developer”,  CPBC planning portal reveals that a similar proposal, adjacent to 96 Smallgains Avenue, Applic. No. 18/0475/FUL,  has also been approved, this time via a delegated decision by Castle Point officers.

Why this never came before the development committee to discuss we can only wonder, especially as the proposal is for a miserably small 3 bedroomed dwelling!

The officer report describes the land, “The application site is a ‘green road’, examples of which are found across Canvey Island. These are former roads which have been closed to vehicular traffic, usually in the 60s and 70s.
Although long since closed to vehicular traffic, the land provides a pedestrian link between Giffhorn Road and Smallgains Avenue.”

This delegated decision is based on the “precedent” that all similar plots on Canvey Island are now available for Land Grabbing, first in gets First Dibs. What a wonderful Freebie for potential developers.

The officer report also discloses another anomaly, that of the way that Castle Point council “apply” the Sequential Test, in regard to Flood Risk, within the Borough.

I use the terms “apply” and “test” in the most loosest sense of the word!

In reality Castle point council’s approach to the application of the Sequential Test on Canvey Island development proposals, really does warrant some close examination.

The local authority’s position on the application of the Sequential Test is clearly politically motivated. The position was adopted, not by Full Council, but as a small item during a Development Committee meeting.

This meeting and the adoption of the approach to Sequential Testing for Flood Risk, was also, prior to the Strategic Flood risk Assessment 2010, the 2013 and 2014 Summer Floods, and has not been reviewed since!

History now indicates that NO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR CANVEY ISLAND HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON FLOOD RISK GROUNDS.

DESPITE THE WHOLE ISLAND BEING A CRITICAL DRAINAGE AREA AND A FLOOD RISK ZONE, 3A

In fact even more development is considered to be required, to actually sustain Canvey Island from so called “social and economic blight”.

This approach leads to carte blanche development approval by officers and the Lead Group on the development committee, whether the development proposal is for a single dwelling, a medium sized development or a large development!

Let’s consider what the NPPF and Government Guidance informs and instructs:

Applying the Sequential Test in the preparation of a Local Plan.

As some areas at lower flood risk may not be suitable for development for various reasons and therefore out of consideration, the Sequential Test should be applied to the whole local planning authority area to increase the possibilities of accommodating development which is not exposed to flood risk.

More than one local planning authority may jointly review development options over a wider area where this could potentially broaden the scope for opportunities to reduce flood risk and put the most vulnerable development in lower flood risk areas.

And

Paragraph 158. The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding.

And yet whether an application for development is Miniscule or Large, Sequential Testing on Flood Risk grounds on Canvey Island by Castle Point council reveals the same Approval Result!

Take these Applications as examples of the decidedly unscrupulous means that development on Canvey Island is promoted, pursued and decided!

Land Adjacent 96 Smallgains Avenue 18/0475/FUL  1 Dwelling House

8.29. The whole of Canvey Island is located in Flood Zone 3A. As Canvey Island is a self contained community with continued development needs, it is considered that there are no sequentially preferable sites available, and the proposal passes the sequential test

Application for 27 Dwellings, Canvey Island

“Since the settlement of Canvey Island is located entirely within Flood Zone 3 it is not considered that there are reasonably available sites within the area with a lower probability of flooding that could accommodate the proposed development. Under the circumstances it is considered that the proposal passes the sequential test.”

Application for 600 Dwellings and Residential Institution, Canvey Island

Regarding the Sequential Test, “The wider sustainability benefits to the community of Canvey Island have been discussed, as part of the Sequential Test. Its continued development is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of this settlement.”

With regard to Sequential Testing of Business premises across the Roscommon Way area, in support of the expansion of Charfleets estate and Morrisons and the new Business Park sites etc, despite the unknown effects of built development on the drainage issues in this and across the rest of Canvey Island, the Sequential Test is considered to have been passed.

Despite the identification, through cpbc’s own Local Plan report evidence, of Business premises need and the better siting of such facilities being in the northern parts of the Borough.

The cpbc Sequential Test methodology is leading to population “Growth” for “Growths” sake, and Housing to offset the Borough’s Needs.

There is absolutely no evidence, nor remote chance, that cpbc and local Responders would be able to tend to the current population of Canvey Island in an Emergency. Proof of which was exposed during the 2014 Summer Floods failure to respond by the local authority and their “agencies”!

 

 

Advertisements

Dancing Queen? “PLEASE RELEASE ME” by Englebert Humperdink would have been more Appropriate, where Green Belt protection is concerned!

The morning following PM Teresa May’s Conservative Party Conference speech and her “dancing” onto the stage to the ABBA tune Dancing Queen, alarming figures regarding the Loss of Green Belt Land were released by the Telegraph!

So alarming that a far more appropriate song to take to the stage to would have been Englebert Humperdink’s “Please Release Me”!

Such is the level of Green Belt released for development during the last year, 12,000 Acres, we are at a loss to explain what the Government, Local Authorities and Developers now consider to be “Very Special Circumstances”!

GB Loss

T.May“Opportunity” for Developers some might suggest.

Certainly Nothing to make a Song and Dance About!

 

Info flagged up by: Basildon Residents Against Inappropriate Development (Dunton Garden Suburb)

Photo Credit: Guardian

Castle Point Local Plan, who is Playing whom? Time for a little more Openess and Transparency?

Castle Point Local Plan has been, and remains a Mess!

During March 2018, in Parliament regarding CPBC and the apparent need to Intervene in the Castle Point council Local Plan process, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced;

“In three areas, Castle Point, Thanet and Wirral, I am now particularly concerned at the consistent failure and lack of progress to get a plan in place and have not been persuaded by the exceptional circumstances set out by the Council or the proposals they have put forward to get a plan in place. We will therefore step up the intervention process in these three areas. I will be sending in a team of planning experts, led by the Government’s Chief Planner, into these three areas to advise me on the next steps in my intervention.
I have a number of intervention options available to me which I will now actively examine. As it may prove necessary to take over plan production, subject to decisions taken after the expert advice I have commissioned, my Department has started the procurement process to secure planning consultants and specialists to undertake that work so it can commence as quickly as possible.”

Given the apparent strait jacket position that the Government have clamped council members into, as they strive to avoid Intervention and handing the cpbc Local plan over to our less than sympathetic neighbours to produce for us, it could be expected that the Government’s hands would be more than spotless.

But no, complications have arisen by the admittance that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) have found fault with the methodology of predicting Household Projection numbers and Population estimates.

Andrew Lainton on his Decisions Blog suggests;

“And now what will happen till at least March 2019, nothing, no one in their right mind will consult or submit, a local plan or JSP.”

Well, Castle Point are threatened with the wrath of the Secretary of State Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MCHLG), should the Gov. Chief Planner find that cpbc are falling behind with the Local Plan timetable!

As recently as the 19th September the cpbc chief executive gave stern warning;

4.5 Ministry officials and their consultants visited the Borough Council in May to complete a “diagnostic check” of the position with local plan work. As a consequence of that visit and subsequent advice Castle Point Borough Council agreed a new Local Development Scheme (LDS) in June 2018, committing the Council to the preparation of a new Local Plan for the Borough on an accelerated timetable, as well as continuing to support the preparation of the JSP.

4.6 The accelerated timetable described in the LDS committed the Council to a Regulation 18 consultation in July and August, which has now been completed. Publication of the Local Plan for Regulation 19 purposes will take place in January 2019.

4.8 Whilst the Borough Council is on course to meet the milestones in the LDS, as discussed with the Ministry, it is at this stage timely to draw the Cabinet’s attention to the potential consequences should there be any deviation from those milestones or the agreed programme.

5.1 Intervention by Government in any area of local government business is a last resort and follows poor decision making and failure to follow Government direction and advice. We have been reminded by Government that intervention is a sanction and should not be considered as an alternative mechanism to deliver a Local Plan.

The Castle Point Local Development Scheme (LDS) stipulates the tight timetable to comply with the SoS’ Intervention requirements requires the cpbc Local Plan to be published by January 2019!

AND YET:

Andrew Lainton stated;

“And now what will happen till at least March 2019, nothing, no one in their right mind will consult or submit, a local plan or JSP.”

Perhaps in the light of the Chinese Whispers that are going around the mainland, regarding secret Local Plan meetings at Castle Point council, a little Openess and Transparency is Long Overdue from officers and councillors as to where they are with OUR Local Plan 2018 and whether the recent Household Projection and Population revelations will affect the cpbc LDS timetable and the Local Plan’s Objectively Assessed Housing Needs!

Councillors, officers feel free to Update your Residents!

Bewildered PIC

 

Briar Cottage, Leige Avenue Development indicative of What Poor Planning Canvey Island continues to be Subject to!

Decision: Application refused.

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

On Tuesday, 2nd October, the Flats proposal for Briar Cottage, Leige Avenue, Canvey Island will be considered by the Castle Point Council Development Committee. Whilst the officer Recommendation is for Rejection of the Plans, we should bear in mind that at the previous meeting the officer recommendation of Refusal for plans for the Residential Institution in the Canvey Island Green Belt, was ignored by a majority of the Committee.

Below are some points taken from the meeting’s Agenda which lead us to the conclusion that CPBC development committee, their Planners and local developers, Have and Are creating a truly Miserable, Cluttered and Poorly Planned place to Live on Canvey Island!

We invite you to make your own conclusions from these Extracts:

“The proposed development of the site with flats is acceptable in principle, however the proposal is considered to represent overdevelopment of the site, by reason of its scale, and form, which results in a visually cluttered and unduly prominent feature on the street, of mean and cramped appearance and likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining residents, by reason of undue overshadowing and dominance.
It is served by an unadopted private road some 4m in width.

Policy H13 of the Adopted Local Plan specifically states that proposals for flats should be located on main roads. Whilst it is recognised that the proposed development would also share a frontage with Leige Avenue, which is a residential street and not a major route the existence of flats in such context is not unusual, indeed flats fronting Central Wall Road exist to the west of the application site which are served from minor residential roads and adjacent to two storey development at the rear. As such it is not considered that an objection based on the relationship between flats and development on adjoining frontages can be sustain”

(So, because breaches of the Adopted Policy have been allowed by CPBC in the Past, Future breaches of the Policy will be acceptable!)

“The proposed development seeks to provide a three storey building a minimum of some 2.2m from the highway boundary. Such disposition is considered likely to result in the creation of an obtrusive and unduly prominent feature in the street scene.
The visual impression gained is one of a cramped and contrived design, overly fussy on the eastern and western wings and bland and austere on the northern elevation.
The unmatched and misaligned dormers within the northern projection adds further to the unsatisfactory and cluttered appearance.

The proposed development provides 17 spaces and is therefore deficient in parking provision and ordinarily would attract a recommendation of refusal.
However, the County Council has confirmed that the site is in a sustainable location, being close to shops, educational establishments and a public transport network, and that within such locations parking standards may be applied flexibly. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of parking

Drainage and Flood Risk

Canvey Island lies within an area identified as falling within Flood Zone 3a. Within such areas there is an identifiable risk of flooding. For Canvey this risk takes the form of both fluvial and pluvial inundation.

Proposals are also required to pass the sequential and exception tests as set out in the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), in order to determine whether sites of lower flood risk probability exist which may be more suitable for the type of development proposed.

With regard to the sequential test, the proposal seeks to provide dwellings on Canvey Island. For residential development to serve the community of Canvey Island it is considered that it would need to be located within, or immediately adjacent to, that settlement. Under the circumstances it is considered that the proposal passes the sequential test.

(Regarding the Exception Test.) In a very broad sense the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement. However, in assessing whether these benefits outweigh flood risk, the flood risks surrounding the development must be considered in more detail.

The second criterion requires that the applicant demonstrate that the development is safe and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.
should the (Flood) defences breach during a 1 in 200 year plus climate change storm event the depth of flood water on site would be between 0.3m and 0.45m deep. For a 1 in 1000 year plus climate change storm event this would increase to about 0.6m.

In order to mitigate the impact of such inundation the applicant’s consultants have recommended that floor levels be raised from 2.03maOD to 2.91maOD. This increase in height would have implications for the development resulting in an even more dominant and prominent feature in the street scene.

Not raising the ground floor level, as indicated in the submitted drawings, will result in flood damage and risk to occupiers in the event of a relevant breach event, however, the two storey nature of the properties is such that refuge can be achieved at first floor level

Redevelopment of the site will result in a reduction in the permeable area of the site and will therefore increase the risk of surface water runoff onto adjoining sites.

In recognition of this the applicant has submitted a surface water drainage strategy which seeks to retain excess surface water within an attention tank provided beneath the proposed car park. Water will be retained within the tank during periods of excessive rainfall and then pumped into the existing surface water drainage system at a controlled rate, in order to prevent surcharging within the system.”

In the event of a Flood of Canvey Island, the Response Plan is for Residents to Stay Put and take Refuge in safe areas of a Building. Yet again, the Floor Plan designs indicate No Specific Flood Refuge Areas. One must assume Residents will take Refuge in upper level Stairways for the duration of the Flood, reliant on Neighbours for the use of Toilet Facilities!

Density and Mix of Housing

The NPPF now exhorts Local Planning Authorities to achieve higher densities, in appropriate circumstances and consistent with the character of the area, in order to achieve the effective use of land and contribute towards satisfying the need for housing.

Policy H9 of the current Local Plan, requiring the optimum density of development to be achieved on any site, is considered to be broadly consistent with this requirement.

Amenity
The proposal seeks to redevelop the site of a single dwelling with a complex of 11 residential units. Local residents have expressed concern that such an intensification of occupation will lead to a significant increase traffic on Leige Avenue,

In terms of the operational phase of the development, it is clear that the proposal is likely to result in additional traffic on Leige Avenue.
Leige Avenue is a single lane road with extremely limited opportunities for vehicles to pass each other.

Social Infrastructure

There is an existing deficit of GP provision across the borough that is a result of the recruitment and retention of GPs as opposed to the amount of facilities available. Growth will exacerbate this deficit. NHS England and the Castle Point and Rochford Clinical Commissioning Group are seeking to address this deficit in two ways.

Firstly, they are seeking to recruit more GPs into the local area through the promotion and development of ‘Training Practices’. They are also putting together a Primary Care Strategy which will seek special clinics developed for older people with complex care needs. This will relieve pressure on GPs to treat the remainder of the population.

Under the circumstances it is not considered that an objection to the proposal on the basis of inadequate GP availability would be sustained on appeal.
Other Matters

The site, is within the zone of influence associated with the Ramsar site (Benfleet and Southend Marshes), Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. As a consequence the ecological implications of the proposal for the designated site must be considered.

Consideration of the development of the site has identified that it would have no direct impact on priority habitat and is not required to be retained in its current state in the interests of maintaining the integrity or facilitating the management of the designated site. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal on that basis.”

Despite the fact that concerns over the increase in the local population, as this development will contribute, is known to impact upon the integrity of the designated Ramsar site.

Conclusion
The proposed development of the site with flats is acceptable in principle, however the proposal is considered to represent overdevelopment of the site, by reason of its scale, and form, which results in a visually cluttered and unduly prominent feature on the street, of mean and cramped appearance and likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining residents, by reason of undue overshadowing and dominance.”

Canvey Island Flood Event “Cover Up”? CPBC willing to withhold information, so as to develop Canvey Island!

A recent addition to the Castle Point Borough council’s Local Plan Evidence Base is the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2018 Update covering South Essex.

The document, apparently is too large to be downloaded from the cpbc Local Plan website, so we downloaded from the Rochford council website instead!

Of note, and the Canvey Green Belt Campaign did make it known to councillors, Canvey Island had no Historic Flood Events, up until 2011, recorded by Castle Point council except the 1953 Tidal Flood. This despite local knowledge confirmed that there is a Surface Water Drainage issue across Canvey Island!

This information we made available whilst the cpbc cabinet discussed and adopted the Surface Water Management Plan during 2012. Little wonder then that cpbc and their partners, were totally unprepared for the Canvey Island Floods of 2013 and, worse still, 2014!

Those living on Canvey Island at the time would have been well aware of a serious Surface Water Flooding Event during 1968. Previous localised Flooding causing more regular problems had also taken place on the Island on more frequent occasions.

None of this was recorded, nor recollections sought, when cpbc gave information to URS Scott Wilson as they compiled the 2011 Surface Water Management Plan for South Essex.

Now it is evident that cpbc have allowed, one can only think for convenience sake, the South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to be published and adopted for inclusion in the cpbc 2018 Local Plan evidence base, with the same Flooding Event omitted!

The South Essex SWMP (2012) states that there are 26 recorded flood events from Castle Point Borough Council, the Essex Fire and Rescue Service, Parish Councils and the Highways Agency. The source of flooding is unknown and these records are shown in Appendix A Figure 5.3. Where available, updated flood incident records held by the project stakeholders, including Castle Point Borough Council, ECC, the Environment Agency and AWS, have been provided to support this Level 1 SFRA update.

Records of Flooding included within the document indicate:

1968 “Fluvial flooding from the Benfleet Sewer” Following this event, structural flood mitigation measures were undertaken along the watercourse to improve the standard of protection against flooding including the construction of the bunded washlands area.

Again in 1987 Flood recorded in Hadleigh

For Canvey Island, during these decades, Nothing Recorded!

So despite the Canvey Green Belt Campaign making it known to cpbc that Canvey Island had suffered Flooding incidents and that the 2011 Surface Water Management Plan incorrectly omitted a record of these events, Castle Point Borough council have allowed a new Assessment to be undertaken without correcting these errors!

Not only that, but the Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study, undertaken following Government departmental advice, was not used as an informative for the South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, despite being signed off in April 2018!

5.4.2 Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study
The Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study (IUD) has been undertaken setting out how surface water drainage should be managed and maintained on the island. The study was not available for inclusion in the Level 1 SFRA; however, the study should be used to inform the Level 2 SFRA and site specific FRAs.

We can only conclude that these omissions and flaws can only be explained by them being deliberate to support the desires of  Castle Point Borough Council to distribute a large level of Housing Development onto the Flood Risk Zone and Critical Drainage Area of Canvey Island within their latest 2018 Local Plan process!

The 1968 Canvey Island flooding was not an insignificant event as much as cpbc may wish it was. These photographs act as proof:

Sandra Davis Photo

copyright: Sandra Davis

Jacksons Photos

Copyright: Jacksons Photos

More information on the 1968 Flooding has been collected, along with many interesting photographs that can be found on the Canvey Island Community Archive. Their website can be found via this LINK.

 

 

Residents almost Total Disengagement with Castle Point Borough Council! Local Plan Consultation a Major Turn Off!

The CPBC Local Plan Consultation formally closed to submissions on the 15th August.

Alarmingly indications are that less than 0.7% of Castle Point residents took part in the process that will shape the future of the Borough!

“The Council invited comments on the contents of a new Local Plan…. Responses are yet to be analysed but initial indications show that more than 1100 comments were received  from over 630 individuals and organisations.”

We say that less than 0.7% of the 89,000+ Castle Point residents made their views known, as the total number of responses included those of neighbouring Councils and Developers!

There can be no doubt, that there is a disengagement with our local authority by residents!

That residents views are ignored, is a view challenged by councillors, but a view that, going by the number of responders, must be recognised!

This disengagement contrasts starkly from the Canvey Green Belt Campaign Referendum that managed to visit and ask residents their thoughts on Green Belt development on Canvey Island, and engaged with over 6,500 residents.

Also the Canvey Ladies who compiled a Petition against development on the Island and achieved over 10,000 signatures.

Not a week goes by without complaints on traffic congestion, and over stacked GP surgery lists. Flats and Houses being developed to more denser and higher designs. Industrial premises taking over important Green Spaces. Flooding becoming more frequent.

With latent feelings running high, why would residents NOT take part in the Local Plan consultation?

0.7% Response is a admittedly a paltry figure considering the number of campaign groups within the Borough.

However, what IS important is the content of the answers given and the documentation in support of what the Local Plan should and should not contain.

Despite this, going by previous experiences, Castle Point council will likely continue to do whatever it suits the current administration.

This is probably why so many attempts to achieve a Local Plan have been forced into withdrawal and fallen by the wayside, and the Government through the Chief Planner, are keeping a very close watch on cpbc’s Local Plan process.

This may be why such a small response was achieved through the Consultation.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Tonight’s the Night – for Canvey Island’s new 57 Bedroomed Residential Care Home? “However”!

The Castle Point borough council Development Committee will tonight consider the proposal for the development of a 57 bedroomed Care Home at the junction of Canvey Road and Northwick Road.

Screenshot (11)

This proposal, within Canvey Island’s depleted Green Belt may present a few contradictory issues during debate.

“Consideration of the proposal under the provisions of the NPPF and adopted Local Plan identifies that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which could only be justified if Very Special Circumstances could be identified,”

“The need for specialist residential accommodation has been identified as a circumstance to which consideration should be given; however, there has been no demonstration that this need can only be met on the application site. In the absence of a clear demonstration that the identified need could not be met elsewhere it is not considered that this circumstance….would justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

The un-identified Need for the Care Home may be difficult to establish, given that the business already has an establishment on a Brownfield site, that it could be argued, may be suitable for renovation to provide the care offered in this new proposal.

“it is considered that the specific scale of development proposed is excessive, resulting in a building of mean and cramped appearance”

“The proposal is therefore contrary to Government guidance as contained in the NPPF.”

The site, currently contains a Garden Centre consisting of basically a large “Green House” style building and wooden canopies to shelter plants. Council officers argue, presumably using imagination, that these they consider “permanent” buildings, in support of the new proposal!

Directly connected to the proposed site is “To the north the site is adjoined by a detached two storey dwelling beyond which is a bungalow and some 112m further to the north, the Dutch Cottage, a Grade II Listed building. 

To the west the site is bounded by open land designated an Ancient Landscape and Wildlife site (West Canvey Marshes Nature Reserve) and used, in part, for the grazing of horses.” 

Given the Approach to development within Castle Point’s Green Belt of late by the local authority on both a Policy level and at Development Committee  level, this proposal may provide some extra confusion to the mix!

Only recently ex-councillor J. King was granted permission for Equestrian facilities consisting of bricks and mortar stables and offices, within the Green Belt.

Contrastingly the need for Housing both market priced and affordable, is proven to exist within the Borough, yet this is denied Approval.

Care MUST be taken in the decision making to establish consistency.

Further, the suitability for a Residential Care Home, within such a small Borough, within an area at Risk of Flooding, should be a serious “consideration”!

The site is opposite an industrial estate with adjoining and nearby roads, Roscommon Way and Northwick Road, the subject of local residents complaints over Noise.

The proposal is also of some considerable size, especially compared to the existing “buildings” on site.

Confusion will be added to debate when the “position” of our previous Local Plans are touched upon. The Adopted 1998 Local Plan is out of date, the Core Strategy is “dead”, the 2014 and 2016 Local Plans are both “withdrawn”, whilst the 2018 hasn’t yet finalised consideration of the Consultation stage!

Most recent development committee decisions have attempted to comply with the proposed non development of so called “virgin Green Belt”, despite the decision in favour of ex-councillor J. King.

The site for the Care Home proposal has been proposed to be included in the most recent draft Local Plan’s. However the 2018 Local Plan is at a development stage, likely to be criticised by an Inspector well ahead of any decision.

Given that the 2 large Green Belt sites in the borough, Jotmans Farm and Glebelands, were both Refused permission  by cpbc officers and committee, and on Appeal also Refused by the Secretary of State on grounds that a decision would be Premature whilst a Local Plan was being produced by the local authority, it may appear “confusing” for a site proposed for inclusion in the 2018 Local Plan, to be decided upon ahead of the new Local Plan’s publication.

A new Local Plan, under close scrutiny from the Government’s Chief Planner, may be better used for Housing or indeed returned to the Green Belt. An interesting proposal indeed.

Whilst this proposal is not exactly the same as either the Jotmans and Glebelands cases we can expect to hear a few “However’s” from the cpbc Case Officer during tonight’s discussion!

Illustration Copyright: Brian Davison estates