Tag Archives: Intervention

Fears Mount as Castle Point Council Election Candidates Concede loss of Green Spaces? Local Plan Intervention decision being Supressed?

Listen, don’t mention the Local Plan! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it alright. (PA Photo/BBC)

With the threat of continued inappropriate Housing and Business development on Canvey Island and across Castle Point generally, we have to ask “Are our Local Politicians now less committed to Saving our Green Belt and green spaces?”

As the CPBC Lead group of prospective Councillors release their Election Addresses on social media, it appears they may well be!

Of the 10 Lead group Candidates, shockingly only 3 candidates have even mentioned Development on Green Belt!

This includes one candidate who has declared an interest and is excluded from participating in the Local Plan process! Even then, none mention fighting for Green Belt as a Constraint on Housing and Business Development!

The Commitment from just 3 of the 10 lead group candidates amounts to:

“I will continue to oppose any development in our Green Belt that doesn’t provide homes for our residents and Government Funded Infrastructure Support.”

“Overbuilding must never threaten our area or our beautiful undeveloped Green Belt land.”

And coincidentally, as if written by the same hand;

“Overbuilding must never threaten our area or our beautiful undeveloped Green Belt land.”

Our concern must be that while a Local Election fast Approaches, Bad News of the Government’s intention to Intervene in the Castle Point Local Plan, is being Suppressed from Residents!

In November 2017, 15 Councils including Castle Point BC were served notice that the Government had begun the formal process of intervention in their Local Plan. The letter to cpbc commencing, “Following your Council’s persistent failure over many years to get a Local Plan in place, on 16 November 2017, I expressed concerns about the lack of progress your authority has made on plan-making.”

Following on from receiving a letter from the CPBC leader,  SoS Sajid Javid responded by rejecting CPBC’s lengthy attempts to placate, by informing within a letter dated 23rd March 2018 “My officials will also begin formal discussions on the options of inviting Essex County Council to prepare a Local Plan for Castle Point and with the neighbouring authorities on the possibility of directing an accelerated Joint Plan, as part of considering whether to use my statutory powers and if so which ones.”

Twelve of the least tardy miscreant local authorities appeared to have done enough to fall off of the Government’s radar except, CPBC, the Wirral and Thanet local authorities.

Accordingly during January 2019, The Secretary of State, James Brokenshire, informed the Wirral and Thanet LA’s, that “Having considered Thanet and the Wirral’s performance against the Local Plan intervention criteria, I am satisfied that intervention action is justified.”

However Castle Point Borough Council, 4 whole months after Refusing to Approve the 2018 version of the CPBC Local Plan and 18 months after originally being served Notice, “appear” not to have heard whether Intervention will be imposed upon the Borough!

 It is highly concerning for Castle Point Council to “act” as though no word has been received from the Government as to whether Intervention has been imposed upon us. It may be perhaps convenient that no implementation of Intervention should be imposed ahead of the Local Elections, this would not make for a leader’s “Good News” story!

It may be a total coincidence that neither the Wirral nor Thanet are conservative controlled Boroughs. Come what may, the fact that the CPBC Lead Group, once so vociferous in their defence of Virgin Green Belt and Green Spaces against Development, now appear on paper to be less committed. The concern must be that those prospective Candidates, not wanting to be associated with Bad News so likely to be announced soon after the Election, are content with the level, or lack of, Development in their own neighbourhoods, and are resigned to being forced to adopt the 2018 Local Plan!

A Reminder, in the Graphic below, for prospective local Councillors of the importance that the Electorate places on Green Belt and its protection through the Election process.

Advertisements

Castle Point Local Plan – Intervention Decision delayed for Housing + Business Growth Plans?

Brokenshire backs 2050 vision for the Thames Estuary

A multi-million pound package of commitments to drive forward growth in the Thames Estuary to create jobs, build new homes and boost local economic growth.

  • The government pledges support for the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission’s vision to create 1.3 million new jobs in the area by 2050
  • £1 million committed to set up a new Thames Estuary Growth Board to drive economic growth in the region
  • £4.85 million committed to support local partners to develop proposals for enhancing transport services between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet

A multi-million pound package of commitments to drive forward growth in the Thames Estuary has been announced today (25 March 2019) to create jobs, build new homes and boost local economic growth.

In its response to the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission’s 2018 report, the government backs the Commission’s ambitious plans to create 1.3 million new jobs and generate an extra £190 billion for the local economy.

Communities Secretary Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP also put forward a number of new measures as part of a wider government support to realise the 2050 growth vision for the Thames Estuary. These include a commitment to give:

  • £1 million to establish a new Thames Estuary Growth Board oversee and drive economic growth plans for the area
  • £4.85 million to support local partners to develop low-cost proposals for enhancing transport services between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet
  • a Cabinet-level Ministerial Champion will be appointed to act as an advocate and critical friend for the region within government will also be appointed

Communities Secretary, the Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP, said:

The Thames Estuary has long been a gateway to the UK economy and has enormous untapped potential, which has the power to benefit those that live and work in the area.

Having considered the recommendations of the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission, I have announced a number of steps we are taking to unlock an even brighter future for the Estuary’s economy, marking the beginning of a new and bolder approach by this government to support the area.

The government’s response sets out its priorities for the Thames Estuary, including the delivery of jobs and homes, addressing local skills challenges and agreeing fully-evidenced Local Industrial Strategies.

Further information

Encompassing East London, North Kent and South Essex, the Thames Estuary has the potential to support growth right across the country. Served by international airports and seaports, it is home to an internationally-significant financial services cluster at Canary Wharf and is achieving huge success as a cultural and creative powerhouse.

Despite its strengths, the economic growth is slower and unemployment levels are higher in the Thames Estuary compared to the country’s averages. That is why in 2016 the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission was tasked with developing an ambitious vision for growth in the area.

Grateful for the expertise and independent challenge provided by the Commission, the government welcomed the Commission’s report, published on 25 June 2018. After considering its recommendations in detail, the government has now responded with its commitments to the Estuary, which marks an important first step towards delivering the Commission’s vision.

The government worked with local partners in preparing its response to set out its measures boost the region.

Copy: wired-gov.net

Stagnation at Castle Point Council, whilst other Local Authorities take the Local Plan Fight to the Inspectorate!

It appears that Castle Point Borough Council are far from being the only Local Authority struggling to meet its Housing Needs. Whether the Government step in to scoop up the left-overs of the various Local Plan versions devised within CPBC Runnymede Towers, or whether CPBC are Actually Attempting to resurrect a Local Plan, rather than twiddling their thumbs waiting for the Government Chief Planner, Residents remain in the Dark!

With the last version of the Local Plan 2018, voted down at the Special Council meeting, it may have been appropriate for a councillor, or a group of councillors, to have proposed a return to the 2016 version, and seen whether a concensus could have been gained on that within a council members meeting.

At least the CPBC Local Plan process would have been seen to be advancing rather than the pathetic Standstill we appear to be held in.

Whether CPBC have had word of Bad News from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, James Brokenshire, but we will not be hearing officially his verdict on Intervention ahead of the May local elections, we can only surmise.

But with news from Manchester that Government Ministers and The Planning Inspectorate not appearing to be on the “same page” where the calculation of Housing Targets and indeed the Supply of Land is concerned, CPBC may well have missed a trick in not continuing to at least try to advance its Local Plan!

We have to assume that CPBC council officers have been working to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate part of the Local Plan process, if not, why not, so why haven’t councillors taken it upon themselves to work on the Local Plan itself?

A Local Plan, whether fully Sound, but at least Agreed upon, could be considered and possibly consulted upon, outside of Intervention. The Green Belt, Flood Risk and the Hazardous Industries could be debated in open Examination, rather than in private!

The Local Government Chronicle Reported on the 26th February 2019:                                         

Greater Manchester CA mayor Andy Burnham has accused the housing minister Kit Malthouse of being ‘at best partial and at worst misleading’ over comments made regarding Greater Manchester’s plans for new homes.                                                                                                                

The issue of whether it is really necessary to build on greenbelt land in Greater Manchester is a contentious one right now. After being beset by delays, the latest consultation on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework opened last month and runs until 18 March.                         

Greater Manchester has calculated how many new homes it will require by 2037 based on 2014 household projections, in accordance with the government’s proposed methodology for calculating local housing need.                                                                                                                         

This required Greater Manchester to plan for 73,500 more dwellings than had it used more recent 2016 projections. In order to meet these targets the combined authority has earmarked nearly 64,000 dwellings on a series of greenfield sites, predominantly within the green belt.       

The mayor claims that the government’s insistence on using these “outdated housing targets” had left him with “no choice” but to plan to build on green belt land. But housing minister Kit Malthouse denied that the government’s targets were mandatory.                                                     

Mr Malthouse stated that any inspector will accept a “properly evidenced and assessed variation” from that target.                                                                                                                                 

“If, for example, you have constraints like areas of outstanding natural beauty or green belt, or whatever it might be, and you can justify a lower number, then an inspector should accept that.”                                      

Mr Burnham claims that Mr Malthouse’s comments, which were made during last week’s parliamentary debate on the framework came as a “surprise” to him.                                                    

They do not reflect current government policy,” he said. “They give a very different impression to the one offered in private by civil servants.”                                                                                          

“Under pressure from Conservative backbenchers, it would appear that the Government is trying to soften its line on housing numbers and greenbelt and deflect blame towards councils…It is unfair and dishonest.”                                                                                                                      

Mr Burnham claims that Greater Manchester does not believe it has discretion over housing numbers, because the government’s planning guidance says local authorities are “expected” to use the government methodology to calculate housing need and will be required to “demonstrate exceptional circumstances” to deviate from it.                                                                

The government’s target, based on its standard methodology, is to build a million homes by the end of 2020. But a report released this month by the National Audit Office, ‘Planning for New Homes’, admitted this target will be “challenging to meet”, and found the standard methodology approach has “weaknesses” and “as a result will be revised”.                                                             

Although local authorities in the South and East of England are being pushed to build significantly more new homes, the report explains that the latest standard method of assessing housing need specifies that the minimum numbers of new homes needed in some areas is now less than the local authorities had previously assessed – in the North West, by 24%.          

Responding to Mr Burnham’s comments, Mr Malthouse said: “We need more homes in the right places and we are reforming the planning system to ensure this occurs. “But we have been clear that the use of green belt land should be a last resort, with the standard method not providing a mandatory target.                                                                                                               

“That’s why we strengthened green belt protection with councils now having to show they have exhausted all other reasonable options to meet development needs before even considering changes to the green belt and then evidence exceptional circumstances to justify development.”                     

Copyright: Jessica Hill, Local Government Chronicle

Residents of Canvey Island left to Face the Risks, whilst Castle Point Council, Fail to Develop an Adequate, operable Emergency Plan!

38,459+ Residents living on Canvey Island, seemingly oblivious to the everyday Risks and potential Harm facing them!

Whether the Risk is Tidal from the Estuary, Surface Water flooding or from the Hazardous Industries on the Island, a suitable Emergency Plan involving the Residents is essential.

The old Adage “we are safe from the Sea” is bunkum, as Castle Point Borough Council’s own evidence Highlights!   

 “Given the risk to the population, various measures are required to deal with the concerns to human health and wellbeing. These include:

• The need for an emergency plan to be in place;

• The need for sea defences to be maintained and improved;

• The need to maintain the population living in the flood risk zone at current levels or lower;

• The need for existing homes to be made more flood resilient, and include areas where people can remain safe in the event of a flood;

• The need for new development to incorporate design elements that make them safe in the event of a flood for occupiers;

• The need for building techniques to be used that enable easy restoration in the event of a flood.” (1)

Further CPBC Local Plan Evidence Documentation enforces the issues;

10.4 Tidal and fluvial flooding poses the most significant flood risk to the Castle Point Borough, in particular Canvey Island and Hadleigh Marshes. The topography and location of watercourses on Canvey Island means that the whole island is at risk from tidal and fluvial flooding. Although much of the Island is protected by the presence of defences, the island is still at residual risk of flooding if the defences were to fail or to be overtopped.

10.5 In the event that a breach in the existing flood defences was to occur, or a failure of one of the existing flood barriers (residual risk), significant depths of floodwater would be experienced on Canvey Island and the southern portion of the mainland.  Given the low lying nature of these parts of the Borough, floodwaters would propagate rapidly across Canvey Island thereby reducing the time for warning and evacuation of residents. (2)

During the Local Plan Intervention fiasco, CPBC informed the Secretary of State of particular physical circumstances of the Borough, considered to be legitimate constraints as to why the Authority could not provide for its Housing Development Needs.

“Of the urban areas of the Borough, Canvey Island, with approximately half of the Borough’s population, is defined by the Environment Agency as Flood Risk Zone 3a, being at or below sea level.

Further land is likely to be required on Canvey Island by the Environment Agency for improvement to existing sea defences in the lifetime of a Local Plan, further restricting opportunity for development

The Health & Safety Executive require significant exclusion areas to be maintained by the Local Planning authority around two top-tier COMAH sites on Canvey Island’s Thames Estuary frontage”, (3)

Direct Recommendations detailed within the CPBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment state:

“The majority of the sites will rely on the provision of adequate emergency planning measures to mitigate the residual risk of tidal flooding in the event of a breach in the tidal flood defences.

It is therefore strongly recommended that the suitability of locating more residential accommodation on Canvey Island and the capacity of the existing egress routes off the island is further discussed with the Emergency Planning Team at Castle Point Borough Council and/or Essex County Council prior to site allocation” (4)

Remarkably, CPBCs Development Control Committee has taken responsibility, (having only aspirational resolutions for the various preventative requirements), for successfully seeing-through Housing developments at Canvey Island since January 2012.

In doing so exposing an increased number of residential and commercial population to Residual and/or Actual Societal Risks.

Emergency Plans supporting increased development on Canvey Island are seemingly only “Generic”, where by dealing with a wide range of possible scenarios such as for example Influenza Pandemics, with no “Specific Plans” that relate to a particular emergency.

Specific Plans are a detailed set of arrangements designed to go beyond the generic arrangements, when the latter are likely to prove insufficient in particular cases such as breaching of flood defences or total LPG tank failure. (5)

It would appear that CPBC have not considered the value of Specific Planning in relation to Canvey Island, if they have, they have not included the involvement of the community in the production of specific planning for viable emergency incidents.

Editor, I will leave the reader with an opportunity to provide a Rationale as to how our local authority, Castle Point Borough Council has managed “Residual Risks” via its Local Planning strategy.

Document References

  1. The CPBC Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report, New Local Plan January 2012
  2. Castle Point Borough Council New Local Plan 2018 Technical Evidence: Summary Document June 2018
  3. CPBC Response letter to Sajid Javid 31st Jan 2018, regarding why Government Intervention in the Local Plan process was unnecessary.
  4. Revised Castle Point 2018 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
  5. Chapter 5 Cabinet Office Revised Emergency Preparedness. Definitions of “Generic” and “Specific” Emergency Planning.

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.

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!

 

Castle Point Council remain on the Intervention “Naughty Step”, whilst other authorities stall and Protect Green Belt! Making an example of CPBC may come at a Cost!

Castle Point Council, having endured an uncomfortable Christmas, sat on the Government Intervention “Naughty Step”, continue to give no sign of any action they may, or may not, have been taking to put the Secretary of State, at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s, mind at rest that they have continued working hard on the CPBC Local Plan.

With the extended Christmas break for council officers and members, we can only assume that once the dreaded “phone call” from the Government chief planner is received, CPBC will by then have raised the White Flag of surrender above Runnymede Towers!

After all, the Local Development Scheme’s Timetable was more focussed on producing Any Local Plan on time, rather than a Good Local Plan! Sound familiar?

However, with the whole Country focussing on the Brexit position, now could be a very Bad Time to make an example of Castle Point Council. With local elections due in May it may be considered untimely for the Government to be seen to be criticising their colleagues within the Local Lead political group, particularly as some of their own members took such decisive action in opposing a Local Plan that proposed so much development on Green Belt!

Since the Local Plan process has been undertaken in Castle Point the current Lead group has maintained political control. Withdrawn Plans include the Core Strategy, the 2014 Plan and the 2016 Plan. Clearly some assistance may be required, but for the Government to make a move that could possibly unbalance the control of the council, would be interesting in the least.

Some public explanation as to what, if any, work has continued to be undertaken would be the least residents deserve, even if only a statement was released via the cpbc friendly Echo.

Meanwhile; The number of homes granted planning permission in England rose by two per cent in the year to the end of September, rising to 359,500.
“The latest Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government statistics reveal a slight increase on the 352,000 homes securing permission in the same period last year.” Housing minister Kit Malthouse welcomed the cooperation between “builders, developers and councillors”, claiming that government reforms to the planning system are “starting to deliver the permissions we need to reach 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s”. Planningportal.co.uk

From this we can ascertain that secured Permissions do not equate to the number of dwellings delivered.

Probably, and more threateningly to Canvey Island, similar to the number of sites identified for release in the CPBC Local Plan, will not equate to the number of sites being developed on the mainland!

County Border News reports December 2018

“Tandridge district council said, the plan would be submitted “in advance of the introduction of a new government target, which would require the district to plan for 12,900 new homes or 645 homes per year”.
It added: “Based on the rural nature, environmental and landscape designations and the significant proportion of the district covered by Green Belt, the council believes the number of homes the local plan can deliver is 6,056, or 303 homes per year.

Whilst elsewhere in Greater Manchester, the local authority have also revised downwards the number of new homes needed, whilst also halving the proposed Green Belt Loss!

“Insiders say this was because the original document was planning for more homes than the region needed.
It also concentrates even more ‘high density’ development in Manchester and Salford – apartments, essentially – as well as in town centres such as Stockport and Bolton, in order to reduce the amount of protected green space under threat elsewhere.
Around 15 green belt sites have been removed from the plan altogether.

The total amount of green belt space under threat has roughly halved under the new plan” **

Whether Localism is to become an empty promise, or not, with other authorities performing equally, if not worse, than CPBC, for the Government to make an example of Castle Point Borough Council at this “sensitive” time, may well be at the price of an upset mainland community.

smiff

*more can be read HERE.

** more can be read HERE.