Tag Archives: Flood Risk

The Big Stick raised to Fall across Castle Point Council’s Knuckles! Government yet to send Letter, as the Wirral and Thanet hear their Local Plan Bad News!

Castle Point Council are now the sole Council awaiting the Government response to their “protracted” efforts towards producing a Local Plan.

Back in March 2018 CPBC were one of just 3 Local Authorities singled out for criticism at the lack of response and effort towards forwarding Local Plans amongst the 15 most feet dragging authorities threatened by the then Housing Minister.

In letters dated 28th January 2019 the Wirral and Thanet Councils have received further instruction on what is now required towards producing their Local Plan. Basically a streamlined group, consisting of a designated lead councillor and lead official, will be charged with responsibility of progressing their Local Plans.

No word as yet of Castle Point Council’s Fate!

In his letter to the Wirral Council, the Secretary of State, JAMES BROKENSHIRE wrote; “We note that in the Wirral’s case the Housing Minister points out “at least two communities in Wirral are currently preparing neighbourhood plans: Leastowe and Birkenhead North. Two further communities have neighbourhood plans in force: Devonshire Park and Hoylake. Communities can bring forward neighbourhood plans in the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan, but doing so can be more challenging for communities.””

Previously Housing Secretary SAJID JAVID had stated; “The government has abolished top-down regional planning. But a locally-led planning system requires elected local representatives to take the lead, listen to local residents and business, and set out a clear framework to build new homes, provide key infrastructure, support the local economy and protect the environment.”

The Canvey Green Belt Campaign group maintains the opinion that Canvey Island, as a whole, would have been better represented if we had made efforts to, at least, commence a Neighbourhood Plan.

This is no less relevant, now that we learn that within the next stages of a CPBC Local Plan, we will be represented by a Lead Councillor more likely to propose inappropriate development on Canvey Island.

A Canvey Island Neighbourhood Plan would have been a vehicle to illustrate the issues facing Canvey Island, in the process to produce a fair Castle Point Local Plan.

Instead we will likely be represented by a Lead Councillor supportive of the rejected 2018 Local Plan, and all of the Development that document proposed to deliver on Green Belt on the Flood Zone and away from politically sensitive areas!

Sources inform us that no Local Plan work is on-going at CPBC, they appear to sitting like ducks in the water, oblivious to the shotgun about to be fired at them!

Admittedly it is strange that of the 3 councils in most serious trouble with the Secretary of State, only CPBC have yet to receive a letter. Either way none of the councillors are feeding any information nor CPBC making comment as to Local Plan progress.

Councillors and officers have a responsibility to the Residents but show little regard as to keeping them informed.

We are likely to pay a heavy price for CPBC’s ineptitude!

We thank our friends at Basildon Residents Against Inappropriate Development for alerting us to the issuing of the Government letters to the Wirral and Thanet Councils, shame our local Echo isn’t more challenging where CPBC is concerned.

The Letters issued to the Wirral and Thanet can be found via this LINK.

Advertisements

Castle Point Borough Council, the Authority that uses Canvey Island Flood Risk as a Constraint to Limit Housing Growth, across the Whole Borough!

Canvey Island residents lay claim that they are treated unfairly by Castle Point Council. In turn CPBC claim they are being treated unfairly by the Government, by being threatened with Intervention due to their Tardiness with producing a Local Plan!

Apparent outrage from the CPBC leader and chief executive, at those Councillors brave enough to Reject the draft Local Plan, did not disguise the fact that the emerging Plan deserved closer Scrutiny and Challenge from Councillors, than those Reasons given for their votes of Rejection during the December Council Meeting.

Whether the Failure of the Local Plan 2018 is due to CPBC Incompetence, or whether some perceived levels of Immorality, or political corruption, is involved in the selection of the Canvey Island Green Belt sites for Housing Development, especially in the approach to the application of the Sustainability Tests involved, we leave the Reader to decide.

As you are probably aware, the whole of Canvey Island is regarded as being in Flood Zone 3a. Housing in this Zone is considered as being Vulnerable development.

The whole of Canvey Island is also considered to be a Critical Drainage Area.

For ease and to avoid confusion wording highlighted in Blue are those of CPBC whilst wording in Red is official Government Guidance.

The Castle Point Local Plan 2018 version at Paragraph 17.4 states “planning policies should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes and policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts”

Typically though, of CPBC, and despite their Officers and some members,  insisting that the NPPF should be “Read as a Whole”, the Local Plan 2018 version Craftily fails to include the final, and most Important part of the NPPF text of the above Paragraph 17.4.

That is; “ , such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure.

CPBC Sequential Test Page 2

This Local Plan Evidence document almost immediately sets out to justify, carte blanche, large scale Housing development on Canvey Island.

Bear in mind that Housing and Residential care Homes are considered to be a “More Vulnerable” uses of Land in Canvey Island a Flood Zone 3a area.

“The NPPF recognises that following the application of the sequential test, it is not always possible, consistent with wider objectives, for certain development proposals/requirements to be located in lower ‘flood risk zones’. It therefore also sets out a test that needs to be passed if certain types of development are to be exceptionally allocated in a local plan”

Exception Test

All of the Canvey Island Housing Sites are considered by CPBC to Pass the Exception Test, “This site has significant positive impacts related to the sustainability objective concerning the provision of housing, including affordable housing.”

Affordable Housing being considered practically Unviable on all Housing Development Sites, even those not requiring the Surface Water Management measures, and Sustainable Urban Drainage schemes, and Raised Floor Levels that are now required on Canvey Island.

Additionally the CPBC Sequential Test found that, NONE of the 9 Housing Development Sites allocated for Canvey Island is considered to be “Within a Potential Surface Water Flooding Hotspot”, whilst 4 of the Mainland Housing Sites were within a potential flooding Hotspot !

Clearly the evidence found in the Reports, on the Canvey Island Summer Flooding 2014 and 2013, has been discounted, ignored and will be hidden from the Government Chief Planner and Planning Inspector examining the Next CPBC Local Plan!

Groundwater Flooding

“All the deliverable and developable sites assessed in terms of their risk of groundwater flooding were found to be appropriate for development, at least in this respect.”

We would ask CPBC “what Tests and Reports  were their Assessments based on?”

Once again only certain Mainland Sites were considered to be “Within an Area Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding”, NONE of the Canvey Island Sites allocated for Housing Development were considered to be affected!

This goes Against common local knowledge AND written evidenced Reports to be found on CPBC’s own website!

Recommendations

“Subject to other considerations, it is recommended that when selecting sites for development in the New Local Plan, preference is given to those sites within the highest preference ranking groups over those in lower groups. This will reduce the exposure of new development to flood risk.

It is recommended that housing sites on Canvey are only allocated as a means of providing flexibility to the housing land supply. If sites on Canvey are included within the New Local Plan, a sequential phasing requirement should be applied within their allocation policy to ensure other sequentially preferable allocated sites are brought forward first. Additionally, requirements in the allocations policies should include the provision of flood resistant and resilient design.”

Quite clearly the Housing Development Site Allocation process, of Castle Point Borough Council, applies considerably more Weight on Green Belt protection over that of Flood Risk. The local authority Actively Chooses to adopt this approach despite some sites on Canvey Island being both Green Belt, within a 3a Flood Risk Zone and a Critical Drainage Area!

Government Guidance in the NPPF continues to point out;

“11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 For plan-making this means that:

b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area, see Footnote 6

Footnote 6 The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 176) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 63); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.”

“Incompetence”, perceived “Political Immorality”, or a “Corruption of Facts”, you decide, if not the Examining Planning Inspector most certainly will!

Canvey_060309_1

Canvey Island, densely urbanised yet always room for more!

 

Canvey Island need for Housing to be “flood resilient and resistant” concerns, as UK New Homes ‘crumbling due to weak mortar’.

Canvey Island, with its “Need” for 1,400 New Dwellings within the next 15 years Local Plan period, may be more reliant on the building inspection service supplied by Castle Point Council, than is the case in other local authority areas.

Any new housing development proposed for Canvey Island, being classed as a Flood Zone 3a risk and also a Critical Drainage Area, is required to pass what is known as the Sequential and Exception Test.

The Sequential Test as indicated by CPBC, “the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding”,  and applied through the CPBC Local Plan process, should mainly see development distributed away from Canvey Island.

However, CPBC do not find this approach appropriate and continue to allocate development onto Canvey.

This sees a requirement that all new Housing “development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant” against the possibility of Flooding.

With current concerns raised about the possibility that Housing Insurance against Flooding, especially New Builds, may be impossible to purchase, a New Report has emerged adding to local concerns.

Some new large building estates have been constructed using a “using weak mortar” mix. The full extent of the issue has not yet emerged as “Gagging Orders” are alleged to have been imposed on some complainants.

13 Estates across the UK have so far been identified as being affected and one by Taylor Wimpey is highlighted in the BBC report below.

Building Control, operated by the local authority areas affected, should have identified the Mortar issue and have stopped the practise in its tracks, before too many houses were affected.

Currently Castle Point Council appear to “Outsource” Building Control rather than appoint their own specialist officers.

The outsourced company handling CPBC building Control is LABC.

Whether the monitoring carried out by LABC is predominately a “desk top” service as opposed to on site testing, we are unaware, perhaps some CPBC Councillors could enlighten us.

We must assume that their monitoring and site visits would throw up any flood resilient and resistant issues, given the Flood Risk issue and the need for Housing on Canvey Island to be “safe for its Lifetime“.

Should this “Weak Mortar Mix” sharp practise, be used on Canvey housing developments it could seriously undermine the flood resilient and resistant aspect of building protection in the event of Flooding.

Equally, it could leave the Flood Re Insurance protection scheme in jeopardy locally.

In Castle Point Council, we must put our Trust!
Mortar problem

Hundreds of new properties have been built using weak mortar that does not meet recommended industry standards, the Victoria Derbyshire show has found.
There are reports of homes with the fault on at least 13 estates in the UK.
The full extent of the industry-wide problem is hard to measure as some homeowners have been asked to sign gagging orders to claim compensation.
The industry says mortar performance is a complex issue and can be affected by a number of factors.

One of those homes was owned by Vincent Fascione, 70. He says he was watching football on TV one evening in 2016 when he heard a loud cracking noise from the external walls of his house.
The next morning, he found a sand-like substance all over his front path and driveway. Photographs and video from the time appear to show growing cracks in the mortar holding his bricks together.

Mr Fascione, from Coatbridge outside Glasgow, bought his semi-detached property in 2012 for £112,500.
He complained to the homebuilder, Taylor Wimpey, and to the NHBC, the industry body that signs off and provides the warranty for most new-build houses.
‘Disastrous’
Under NHBC guidelines, mortar in most areas of the UK should be made of one part cement to 5.5 parts sand.
In severe weather areas such as Coatbridge, there should be even more cement in the mix to make it stronger and more durable.

Laboratory tests on samples taken from parts of Mr Fascione’s home showed the amount of sand was almost three times higher than recommended.
“I’m the guy who retired and decided to buy a new-build house,” he said. “I’ll never buy a new-build house again – never. It’s just been disastrous for me.”
After 18 months of complaints, the NHBC bought back Mr Fascione’s home at the market rate and he is living in alternative accommodation.

The organisation said it had done so because the performance of the company it had employed to repair the property had not been good enough and “in consideration of Mr Fascione’s personal circumstances”, not because of the original issue with the mortar.
‘Widespread and serious’
The Victoria Derbyshire Programme has heard about new build properties in at least 13 estates from Scotland to Sussex, built by different companies, with what appears to be a similar problem.

In one single estate in the Scottish borders, it is thought Taylor Wimpey has agreed to replace the mortar in more than 90 separate properties. The homebuilder says an assessment by engineers found “no structural issues” with the homes.
“This is both widespread and serious,” says Phil Waller, a retired construction manager who has blogged about the problem.
“It cannot be explained away by the industry as a few isolated cases.”

Exactly why the weaker building material may have been used is unclear.
In some cases, the housebuilder may have simply used the wrong type of mortar. In other cases, errors may have been made mixing and laying the material on site.
Some construction experts also blame the switch to a new type of factory-mixed mortar, which might pass a different strength test in the laboratory but not always be strong enough in the real world.

Steve Turner, from the Home Builders Federation, said builders “generally have their mortar provided by large accredited suppliers… [who] have clear quality assurance and testing processes to ensure mixes are delivered as required.
He added that there were “very few instances we’re aware of where defective mortar has been used”.
“And in those instances where it has been used, there’s an obligation on the builder to fix the issues.”
He added that having spoken to “a number of builders in the past week, most have had no issues with mortar whatsoever – [and with] those that have, it’s on a very limited number of sites”.

Non-disclosure agreements
Faced with what could be an expensive repair bill, many homeowners have been told by their own solicitors not to go public until the issue is resolved.
In some cases, customers have ultimately had their houses bought back by either the homebuilder or the NHBC.
In others, it appears repairs have been made and compensation paid as part of a deal that involves the signing of a non-disclosure agreement or gagging clause.
One homeowner in the north-west of England told the programme: “The only comment I can make is no comment. I’d like to speak out but at the end of the day I have to protect my investment.”
A gagging clause may stop the property owner talking not only to the media but also to neighbours in the estate who may be facing similar problems.

“It’s going on, it’s just not being talked about,” says Mr Waller.
“Non-disclosure agreements should be banned full stop. If it’s all covered up, more victims are likely to be drawn into the net and make the same mistakes.”
An NHBC spokesman said it included a confidentiality clause in a “small number of rare circumstances” but declined to disclose the number.
He added: “We work with builders to help them improve the construction quality of the homes they build. However, it is the builder who is ultimately responsible for the quality of the new homes they build.”
Taylor Wimpey apologised to Mr Fascione for the issues experienced with his home.
A spokesman said: “We are committed to delivering excellent quality homes and achieving high levels of customer satisfaction. On those occasions where issues do arise, we endeavour to resolve those issues as soon as practically possible.”

By Jim Reed
Reporter, BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme
6 December 2018

Canvey Residents, Local Plan 4,000 new Dwellings! A Must Attend Meeting, for US All! Make Your Councillor Aware of your feelings! Think the Paddocks and Jellicoe are bad, you wait until this Plan is implemented! Another fine Mess we are Left In!

Canvey Islanders, this time next week our Fate will have been decided!

A meeting to consider the CPBC Local Plan 2018 with sites identified for 4,000* new dwellings, and the release of vast tracts of Green Belt and green field sites will have been held and a decision made!

Benfleet Residents will be mobilised to attend the meeting on the 28th November to influence their councillors.

Canvey Island Residents should be prepared to do the same!

Details of the meeting are below.

Cllr Smith and the Chief Executive of CPBC will be giving the Green Light to developers in areas such as the Dutch Village cornfields, the Triangle, the Paddocks, Thorney Bay and Jotmans farm!

This decision will have a fundamental affect on our daily lives if allowed to happen!

Whether your current concerns are the daily Traffic Congestion, the removal of the Rapid Response Vehicle, the NHS “reorganisation” in our area, access to Doctors, Schools, the loss of Green Fields, Flooding of our Homes, be certain that if our Councillors vote to Approve the Local Plan as it stands, these issues will intensify!

We must Urge our Councillors to actively Vote Against this Local Plan, even if Intervention is the only option.

As it was explained in the previous POST the threat of Intervention may not be quite as bad as portrayed by cllr smith and ceo marchant. Certainly the removal of local input, was exaggerated.

Back in June Castle Point councillors were threatened by the effects of Intervention and the benefits of CPBC retaining control of the Local Plan;

By the cpbc ceo: with intervention “Council with no say over Plan making locally, and no influence over the outcome”

By Cllr smith said: “keeping the plan making process in members control is of paramount importance for cllrs and residents to keep control of the shaping of our future Borough.” “Green Belt assessment a set process and promised member involvement in that process.

“By cllr Stanley: “give confidence to the gov minister that he can leave the job safely in our hands.”

I wonder how worse it could have been?

We must Urge our Councillors to actively Vote Against this Local Plan, even if Intervention is the only option.

Part of the Local Plan is to consider Constraints against development. Across the Borough Green Belt is a major Policy Constraint against development.

On Canvey Island, in particular, a second major Constraint is Flood Risk. CPBC have consistently used Flood Risk as a Constraint against development Housing Numbers across the Borough.

Where Flood Risk actually threatens, on Canvey Island, the Constraint is Not applied to development. In effect the Borough Housing Supply Numbers are reduced, but not on Canvey Island specifically.

We must Urge our Councillors to actively Vote Against this Local Plan, even if Intervention is the only option.

The population of Castle Point increased over the previous Census Period 2001 -2011 by just 1.6%.

However, the distribution of this increase is interesting, Canvey Island, where Flood Risk is an Actual Threat, was 2.6% up, whilst the Mainland saw just a 0.8% increase!

We covered this in more detail HERE.

We must Urge our Councillors to actively Vote Against this Local Plan, even if Intervention is the only option.

With the development of Jotmans Farm, of 900 dwellings, comes a Link Road, wait for it, ONTO CANVEY WAY !

The intention is to form a junction from west Benfleet to meet Canvey Way halfway along.

Canvey Island Commuters will only have to envisage the effects of traffic having priority from the right at junctions to imagine how this will effect the Island!

It is clear this Local Plan 2018 is a Bad Plan.

We must Urge our Councillors to actively Vote Against this Local Plan, even if Intervention is the only option.

At least the possibility of a Neutral view on development distribution may be applied, rather than this biased version!

A list of our CPBC councillors contact details can be found HERE.

The Local Plan meeting to decide where and when development across Canvey Island will take place Wednesday 28th November start 7.30pm at Council Chamber, Kiln Road, Thundersley, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 1TF.

*mainland residents group claim.

Like a bad Smell, this just will not Go Away!

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.