Tag Archives: CPBC

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

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.

Canvey Island’s Last Chance, Benfleet residents dictating the Development and Future Plan of Castle Point!

The Canvey Island pages on Facebook and Social Media will likely soon be red hot with the impact of what the CPBC Local Plan proposes. Increased Traffic Congestion, loss of Green Spaces and over subscribed medical facilities will give us all something to rage about!

Why then does it appear that Canvey Residents are shy of making their views known to the Council ahead of these decisions being made?

With a potential 342 new dwellings being planned for across Castle Point, you can bet a large majority will be built on Canvey and the southern part of the mainland!

Do we believe our voice will not be heard, or our views won’t be considered, or simply that Canvey folk are disengaged from Castle Point Council?

Why is there little press coverage and information, why are CPBC, with their own social media outlets silent instead of encouraging engagement?

With just a week to go, looking at the opening pages of the Local Plan Consultation website Portal, it is clear that Benfleet Folk, understandably concerned for their own environment, are up for the Battle!

There appear far more responses from the mainland than Canvey.

Many, not all, are objecting to all of the mainland proposed development, leaving Canvey Island development sites exposed, due to low objections from the Canvey Community! The Consultation is simply a tick box exercise with a space to add comments, the only tricky part may be registering to comment!

The Link to the CPBC Local Plan Consultation can be found HERE.

Where your first step is to look for the self explanatory line that reads; “In order to complete this form you must first log in or register if you have not yet done so already.”

Your view is important. So far entries do not bode well, the balance needs addressing!

Here are just a few entries on the Consultation:

WM Morrisons (Supermarkets) the “triangle” site (Canvey Road) should be identified as a housing allocation….
PLUS the football pitches to the east of the Morrisons Store on Canvey Island, and owned by Morrisons……. The inclusion of the site as employment land would also provide a valuable addition to the Charfleets Industrial Estate.

………………………..

Inner London Group seeks the enlargement of the land area allocated under Policy E4 (Extension to Charfleets Industrial Estate) to include contiguous land to the east of the existing allocation,bounded by the extension to Roscommon Way to the north and Haven Road to the east

…………………………

OIKOS (OSL) “As has been explained by OSL in its representation on policy T2, delivering this extension of Roscommon Way would require land which the current landowners and lessees (OSL) do not wish to give. For this and other reasons explained, the Roscommon Way extension is not considered to be realistic or deliverable.”

……………………………

Basildon Borough Council “raises questions regarding Castle Point’s land capacity for housing. The 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identifies that Castle Point has capacity for around 7,300 homes.”

……………………….

Southend Borough Council conclude: “Further the approach taken in preparing the Plan does not fully meet the requirements of the duty to co-operate as outlined in the Localism Act 2011 and the NPPF.”

……………………….

CCA_news_img1_lrg

Photo Courtesy: canveycomesalive

 

Canvey Island 3rd Access Road – Traffic Chaos set to Continue! Local Plan Carrot to Residents Mashed, Report exposes Credibility doubts!

Any Canvey Island Resident ground down by the daily commute off of the Island, be prepared for Disappointment!

The latest attempt by a now desperate Castle Point Council, to produce a Local Plan under the close scrutiny of the Government Chief Planner, dangles the usual carrot of Highway improvements for Canvey Island within the Consultation questionnaire.

We are asked:

29a. Do you support dualling of the northern section of the A130 Canvey Way in the vicinity of Sadlers Farm?

33a. Do you support a new junction on the A130 Canvey Way to provide access to the west of Benfleet?

scorpions

Beware the Sting in the Tail!

You will note at best, only Limited Carriageway Dualling of Canvey Way is aspired to, with a junction for traffic from a New and vast Housing Estate at Jotmans Farm converging with the already congested traffic leaving and heading to Canvey Island!

This short length of dualling of Canvey Way, is not a measure remotely likely to improve congestion on Canvey Way, one only has to look at the amendments at Sadlers Farm to see that. Sadlers Farm, sold as an improvement for Castle Point motorists, was intended as a “cheap” fix for the A13 / A130 transport to avoid the notorious Sadlers Farm roundabout!

The aspiration to relieve traffic congestion of Canvey Island formed part of the Transport Policies of the long out of date 1998 Castle Point Adopted Local Plan!

A130 Canvey Way dualling – Upgrading of Canvey Way to dual carriageway standard between Sadler’s Farm and Waterside Farm roundabouts and the creation of a grade separated junction at Sadlers Farm Roundabout. 

Despite the proposed improvements, the Council remains concerned in respect of highway infrastructure in Castle Point, and will continue to press the Highway Authority for improvements to the strategic highway network in the Borough, and in particular for the early dualling of Canvey Way.

POLICY T1 – STRATEGIC HIGHWAY NETWORK THE COUNCIL WILL URGE THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO UNDERTAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY NETWORK IN AND AROUND THE BOROUGH, INCLUDING THE DUALLING OF CANVEY WAY.

No word then of the need for a “3rd Access” to Canvey Island!

Now in the latest Local plan Consultation we are tempted with:

32a. Do you support improved access to Canvey Island?

Note, not the long touted 3rd Access route to Manor Way Thurrock, just “improved access to Canvey Island”!

So should we assume this will infer to us all supporting the “dualling of the northern section of the A130 Canvey Way”, as in Q29A above, whether we do, or do not?

Because I would suggest that the dream of a true 3rd Access Route for Canvey Island remains an aspirational wish!

We have come across paperwork of a meeting in December 2013 that makes clear, not only is a 3rd Access Unlikely and definitely Un Funded, but also unsupported by any Evidence to suggest the benefits would warrant the vast Expenditure required.

The Castle Point Regeneration Team met with the then Secretary of State Patrick Mc Loughlan.

North Thames Link Road Proposal
On the 16th December 2013 a delegation from Castle Point Borough Council took part in a meeting with Mr Patrick McLoughlan. The Secretary of State for Transport to discuss the credibility of the above proposal.

A holistic overview of the above proposal and of the submitted supporting back ground documents was sought. This has resulted in the following preliminary observations designed to promote further work into the soundness and deliverability of the Councils aspiration.

The delegation consisted of Mrs Rebecca Harris MP, high profile CPBC Officers, Local and Essex County Councillors. The agenda was to seek support for a North Thames Link Road Proposal targeted towards the regeneration at the Canvey West Marsh area of the Borough of Castle Point Council, this being an aspiration of CPBC New Local Plan.

General observations for further discussion.

1. The most fundamental omission from the Background papers is the Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Castle Point Borough Council commissioned “Employment and Retail Needs Assessment” final Report, completed as evidence for The New Local Plan in August 2012. Nathaniel Lichfield specialise in Planning, Design and Economics and their comprehensive report concluded, amongst other things:

“That the impact of improved access to Canvey Island by linking Canvey Island and Thurrock, that it was unclear on the basis of evidence currently available whether the positive economic effect associated with this would justify the significant infrastructure cost associated with providing a new highway, particularly within the context of strained public sector funding and ongoing road improvements elsewhere in the Borough (e.g. Sadlers Farm) which should improve accessibility generally.”

This report also states:

“That it is unclear whether supply chain linkages between Canvey Island firms and London Gateway would improve significantly as a result of a more direct route.”

The report points out a significant point at 7.53. “It is also important to note that four of the demographic/housing led demands estimates result in a negative requirement for employment space in future compared with the current position. This largely reflects an ageing population, which for the modest increase in housing proposed, produced a lower number of working age residents and hence a lower demand for future jobs and employment space.

It is understood that Castle Point Council may be inclined towards a scenario based on 200 dwellings being built per annum. If this were to be the case, it would imply less employment space being needed in future and fewer local workers to support economic growth in the Borough.”

2. The significance of the failure to identify within the North Thames Link Road supporting documentation, the work undertaken for the authority by Nathaniel Lichfield has had the effect of compounding further towards a poorly informed badly evidenced appraisal.

The following points need to be considered:-

3. Did those attending the NTLR regeneration meeting, who may have had an interest, declare that interest?

4. There are long outstanding uncompleted infrastructure issues within the 1998 Local Plan, such as the duelling of Canvey Way and the completion of the Roscommon Way. Was funding for these existing issues discussed if so? What was the Ministers response?

5. Calor Gas and Oikos are incorrectly identified as refineries!

6. For the CPBC NTLR proposal to mention that redundant contaminated Brownfield sites would benefit from becoming available, is somewhat short sighted. Contaminated Sites are not very desirable due to the expense of reclamation, having the effect of limiting the economic viability opportunities

7. The reference to Canvey Way is surprising given that there is no proposal for betterment, the CPBC NTLR proposal details the limitations of this route. The mention of the DMRB Design Manual for Road and Bridge specifications opens up a huge can of worms not only for this proposal but for the New Local Plan

8. With reference to the above guidance process the application would have been expected by the Minister to have the support of a VDM viable demand model as part of the preliminary assessment procedure. This is not evident in the submission.

9. The submission relates to a previous feasibility report which noted that the construction of a road in that area was not without
significant environmental and ecological SSSI constraints. It is difficult to identify within this background report how this will be averted.

10. With reference to note 9 the estimated cost at that time of the previously proposed road was between £45 and £70m which seems conservative given todays examples. However it would seem that to finance this project through private enterprise seems to call in the issue of viability.

11. Reference to the London Gate Way Port and Business Park as if the project would benefit from the access to the North Thames Link Road presumably being able to access Canvey Way should be the most significant reason as to why this proposal should not take place. The submission identifies capacity problems at the A1014 and the Canvey Way, Sadlers Farm junctions, this factor alone negates the benefits to any future employment areas needing to use the North Thames Link Road.

12. There is no evidence that the HCA Homes and Community Agency has disposed of the West Canvey Site into the private sector nor is there any evidence that 4,000 jobs will be created for local people. The trend has been the provision for low paid local employment this tends to multiply deprivation. This factor will not support the argument for large scale market price housing development in this area.

13. The reference to the fact that 100,000 tonnes of LNG Liquid Natural Gas being stored at the Calor Gas site is dangerously misinforming the Minister. This calls into question the integrity of the whole CPBC NTLR document with regards to the reliability of its content when much of it contains unreliable poorly researched evidence.

14. To suggest that the economics of the development of Canvey Town Centre is weak and in need of the potential impetus from the implementation of the Thames growth hubs to enable the town centre redevelopment to become a reality, is a damming indictment for the deliverability of the Canvey Town Centre regeneration aspiration.

15. The non-attendance of an Emergency Planning Officer or any mention of the benefit that this project could bring to the community of Canvey Island by way of assisting in its evacuation, has not been thought worthy as an argument to support the reasoning for a third
road. It can only be concluded from this, that the possibility of a Major Industrial Accident, Surface Water Flooding, Breach and Over Topping of our sea defences (ref: Scott Wilson CPBC SFRA 2010 document ) are sound reasons why not to support further urbanisation of this part of the Borough.

16. Unfortunately the aspiration for further large scale development on the Zone 3 flood plain of Canvey Island was not previously supported within the Planning Inspectors final report following the examination of the withdrawn Core Strategy. This fact has not been recorded in the submitted Back Ground documents despite being known to many of the delegation members presenting evidence to the Minister.

17. There has been very little if any consultation undertaken either with local elected representatives or the local community with regards to this proposal. It is strongly felt locally that once again development of Canvey Island will come forward without the appropriate supporting infrastructure and proper scrutiny.
It is undisputable that Canvey Island has not benefited from the previously identified necessity of the duelling of the Canvey Way or the completion of the Roscommon Way internal linkage route.

There has been no evidence brought forward, other than in support of further unwarranted development, that the duelling of Canvey Way is not by far the best option. This factor alone will support any future major repairs to the existing Canvey Way infrastructure once completed. Should this proposal in any way resemble CPBC previously outdated Local Plan policies, it is likely that material considerations in particular the emergence of the NPPF and also new evidence, will be afforded considerable weight in the decision of soundness following the examination of the New Local Plan.

QAJZU1 E12 PW SPEEDCAMERAS

pic courtesy of Echo News

Photo courtesy: scarymommy.com

Canvey Residents – Ignore the Castle Point Local Plan Consultation at your Peril! Changes – Development – Pipe Dreams and Promises are Afoot!

Whether you Bother to Answer, and How you Answer, the CPBC consultation questions, will have a direct bearing on how much Canvey Island changes in the immediate Future! Council Leaders and officers will have appeasement from the Government threat of Intervention in the cpbc Local Plan, uppermost in Mind!

Paddocks

The Paddocks community centre, Canvey Island

Make no Mistake, Development, both Housing and Business, on the most easily accessible large Green Field sites is the likely outcome of Castle Point’s Local Plan consultation!

Once the Local Plan consultation period is over the “Tricks of the Trade” of those charged with “interpreting” the responses come into play.

Previous consultations have seen many objections against cpbc proposed Local Plans, this has led to cpbc council Leaders suggesting that the “non responders” views mirrored those of the council Leaders, despite them having no evidence to suggest they did!

It is for this reason that Canvey Island residents should not only take part in the Local Plan consultation, but also be very careful how the questions are responded to!

Your responses may well be construed to mean something very much different in the hands of cpbc!

An eagerness for infrastructure, may be construed to indicate that residents are in favour of more large developments on Canvey Island. Whilst the Infrastructure improvements amount to pipe dreams, be sure that, the developments will be forthcoming!

Consultation Question 9, for example asks;

Which approach described below in providing new development is most suitable for the borough?

A Intensify existing built up areas with new development and increased density
B Create new settlements in the borough
C Disperse developments to the edge of the built up areas

Before you Answer A, we should remember that Canvey Island is already the most densely Urbanised part of the Borough!
Answer C flies in the face of the Purposes of the Green Belt, that is, “to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas”
Answer B would appear to have implications for residents elsewhere in the Borough.

Answer Question 11 without an explanation and you will be considered to support large site development on Canvey Island!

11. What type of housing do you feel is best suited to your area? (tick all that apply)
Affordable rents, Buy-to-let, Elderly care homes etc, etc.

None of which can be provided without Private Investment, likely off the back of large scale, market price, private development!

Housing allocations
“The new Local Plan 2018 will revisit all potential sites considered within the 2014 and 2016 Plans and assess their future suitability through technical studies,”

No they will not! All Canvey sites, with the exception of the “Triangle Site”, behind the Dutch Cottage Canvey Road, for some reason, were considered to be developable whether Green Belt or Brownfield, or in a Flood Risk zone or Critical Drainage Area, which incidentally the whole of Canvey is!

The Constraints on development revealed in the Technical Studies are all dismissed by cpbc where Canvey Island is concerned!

13a. Do you support the potential residential development at land at Thorney Bay Caravan Park, Canvey Island?

Absolutely irrelevant Consultation question. The owners have permissions in place for a Park Home site and are successfully developing one. CPBC have no jurisdiction over the likely loss of the Roscommon Way final phase land.

14a. Do you support the potential residential development at land at Point Road, Canvey Island?

The Business site was first proposed as a housing development, then returned with a vastly inflated figure of Housing, drawing many, many objections from local residents not least because of the reliance on the tiny roundabout access area and the Flats proposed. And, where would all of the current businesses be re-housed, well no doubt onto more Canvey Green field land around the Roscommon Way area!

20a. Do you support the potential residential development at land west of Benfleet?

Ask ourselves, can we really take more traffic on Canvey Way? And by the way, this is Jotmans Farm if you didn’t recognise the site name.

22a. Do you support the potential residential development at land east of Canvey Road?

Do they really need to ask? This is the Dutch Village Green Belt site, the one that out of the 6,534 Referendum Votes cast, just 56 Canvey Islanders said they were comfortable with persimmons developing!

23a. Do you support the potential residential development at land fronting Canvey Road?

This is beside the Dutch Cottage, Green Belt site, I am sure the extra traffic filing down from Sadlers Farm to Thorney Bay Road every evening, is something we could do without.

26a. Do you support the extension to Roscommon Way?

Given that there is no funding, and that Essex Highways do not wish to burden themselves with future maintenance costs, and that the Thorney Bay part of the land required may not be available for development anyway, this appears simply an unlikely aspiration.

27a. Do you support widening of Sommes Avenue?

Of course we do, but wouldn’t the installation of the cycle way along the North side of Somnes Avenue by ECC, mean that there is no space for the widening of Somnes Avenue by ECC?

29a. Do you support dualling of the northern section of the A130 Canvey Way in the vicinity of Sadlers Farm?

Or put another way, do you support development of Jotmans Farm with access an access onto Canvey Way.
Really?

32a. Do you support improved access to Canvey Island?

Well of course we do, but it will be at the likely expense of much more land released for development. Thurrock Council opposition will not remove their objection and cpbc will have to overturn their own Local Plan Evidence findings that; “it is not obvious that a new road access to Canvey Island could enable the area to benefit to a much greater extent from the major port and distribution development at London Gateway in Thurrock. The cost of such infrastructure would also need to be weighed against the scale of economic benefits likely to accrue to Canvey Island, and the extent of these do not appear likely to be major.”

And Finally, as they say:

34. Do you have any additional comments on the new Local Plan 2018?

Not unless you feel the fact that Canvey Island, the whole of which, is a Critical Drainage Area, is also a tidal Flood Zone 3a area, and has 2 Top Tier Comah sites, meaning should there ever be a need to evacuate the Island, the Emergency Services would be unable to cope with the current levels of Canvey’s population, has some bearing on the Consultation that castle point officers appear to be overlooking or ignoring!