Tag Archives: local plan

Dates, Canvey Islanders won’t even Notice! Thorney Bay’s, on its way!

Canvey Islanders, it is said, haven’t the nous to have a cynical thought cross their little minds.

Firstly, following the Election announcement on the very last day prior to the period of Purdah commencing, the Jotmans Farm Appeal Inquiry was Rejected by the then Secretary of State, thereby saving important mainland Green Belt from development.

Secondly, tomorrow, 6.6.2017, just 2 Days prior to the General Election, castle point council development committee will decide the Recommended Approval “first phase” of the Thorney Bay vast green field development, on Canvey Island.

Thorney Bay Beach Camp, Canvey Island, Essex

copyright Jason Hawkes

This so called first phase at Thorney Bay amounts to 113 new dwellings.

The development committee Agenda paperwork indicates officers advise :

It is not considered necessary for Members to visit the site prior to determination of the application.

This despite :

To the north of the site is the Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) Thorneyfleet Creek, which comprises a water body with Common Reed and rough grassland; beyond this is residential development. To the east is Public Open Space, in the form of a grassed area and children’s play space. To the south and west is the wider expanse of the Campsite. A water treatment works lies to the west of the wider site and beyond this is the Calor gas terminal. To the south is the Canvey Island Sea Defence, beyond which is the River Thames.

Of the Health and Safety Executive’s comment;

..more than 10% of the housing development area lies within the (Calor Gas Hazardous) middle zone….and HSE Advised Against Granting Planning Permission.

The HSE then go onto excuse the proposed development layout, stipulating that castle point council must not in future use the self regulating facility, instead be referring any future development directly to the HSE!

The Case Officer comment, which will no doubt be pointed out to the planning committee members in the Agenda Paper states; 

Health and Safety Executive  No objection.

As far as potential flooding is concerned, especially as the site is directly reliant on the Canvey Sea wall Defences;

Environment Agency  No objection: following the receipt of a revised FRA, subject to conditions and the satisfaction of the LPA that the proposal will be safe for its lifetime

It should also be noted, should the are become flooded yet again that responsibility has been relieved of the Leal Local Flood Authority (Essex CC.);

It is the applicant’s responsibility to check that they are complying with common law if the drainage scheme proposes to discharge into an off-site ditch/pipe. The applicant should seek consent where appropriate from other downstream riparian landowners. 
The Ministerial Statement made on 18th December 2014 (ref. HCWS161) states that the final decision regarding the viability and reasonableness of maintenance requirements lies with the LPA. It is not within the scope of the LLFA to comment on the overall viability of a scheme.

But of course the Rumours emanating from CPBC is that Thorney Bay will become a Park Home site, So None of these Rules Will Apply!

1,600 static caravans could quite easily become 1,000+ Park Homes, and there is the next Local Plan’s 5 Year Housing Supply.

Let existing Canvey Island residents and future property owners be warned!

We make no apology for over-simplifying these issues but for anybody interested the webcast and recording should be available via;  https://castlepoint.gov.uk/webcasting

The meeting Agenda papers are available via; https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/agendas-minutes-library

 

Now Claim Canvey Island as being a “Special Case!” Before CPBC Local Plan Revision!

Canvey Island – and – “The Special Case!”

Floods 2014 pic via Police Helicopter

View of Canvey Island flooding from Police Helicopter July 2014

Now, finally, a Court Ruling, relevant to Canvey Island that ALL RESIDENTS should now be seeking answers from those Castle Point Council members, who have long been purporting that, WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS CONCERNED – Canvey should be treated as a “Special Case!”

Shrugs, fob offs and “yes I know” are now no longer sufficient!

Answers are Due Now!

Since the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the pair of leading cpbc officers, by leading their lesser minnows around by their noses, have recommended Approval of many inappropriate housing proposals for Canvey Island, some on Green Belt and ALL in a Flood Zone!

This under the officers insistance that the NPPF “must be read as a whole”.

Reading the NPPF as a “whole” is fine, PROVIDING it is being read correctly in the first Place!

Below is the relevant court ruling that should arm each and every Canvey Island councillor, and those members with the social conscience to stand as Borough councillors, in a position to influence Planning decisions and Local Plan making, with the tools necessary for a just society.

Yet again we, the Canvey Green Belt Campaign, reproduce and draw your attention to Paragraph 14 and Footnote 9 in particular;

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
For plan-making this means that:

● local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area;

● Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: – any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.    9
For decision-taking this means:

10 ● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:  – any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.    9

Footnote 9 Reads;

9          For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

The Court Ruling taken directly from the Local Government website Reads:

William Eichler 11 May 2017

Court delivers landmark ruling strengthening hand of local planners

Court delivers landmark ruling strengthening hand of local planners

A council in Cheshire has secured a ‘landmark ruling’ from the Supreme Court that will better protect green areas from speculative housing developments.

Cheshire East Council, along with Suffolk Coastal Council, argued guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was being applied incorrectly.

The case arose from an application by Richborough Estates to build 170 homes on green gap land between Nantwich and Crewe at Willaston, which Cheshire East rejected.

However, the case went to court because the developers argued – drawing on the wording of the NPPF – that in some circumstances relevant policies for the supply of housing should be treated as ‘out of date.’

This they claimed included green gap land protection.

The judges upheld the developers appeal, but ruled that their specific argument was not legitimate.

The court judgement stated: ‘No one would naturally describe a recently approved green belt policy in a local plan as “out of date”, merely because the housing policies in another part of the plan fail to meet the NPPF objectives.’

Cheshire East Council said the judgement strengthened the hand of all local authorities seeking to protect green gap, green belt and other special sites.

‘This is a landmark ruling, achieved by Cheshire East, which will benefit planning authorities and town planners up and down the country,’ said council leader Rachel Bailey.

‘I am proud that this council had the courage to pursue this action.

‘This means that we can now better protect our local communities from speculative, unsustainable development by ensuring a proper approach to the application of planning policies.’

Fair Play for Canvey Island in the light of the Jotmans Decision or are we still a “Special Case”?

And the Necessity for Castle Point Borough Council to produce a Local Plan is?

“National planning policy places Local Plans at the heart of the planning system,”

Even so, the National Planning Policy Framework states as early as Paragraph 14;

“Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:

– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole;

or– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. 9

Paragraph 14, Footnote 9 Reads; “For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.”

“so it is essential that they are in place and kept up to date. Local Plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design.”

The Secretary of State’s decision to dismiss the Jotmans Farm Appeal in the light of the Inspector’s recommendation, raises some questions.

Is the Planning Inspectorate’s reading of the NPPF and Guidance similar to that of the Government’s?

There was agreement between the SoS and the Inspector that, Castle Point Council are only able to identify 0.4 years worth of the required 5 Year deliverable Housing Supply, this is an even worse supply than in 2013 when the SoS considered cpbc had a realistic housing supply of just 0.7 years!

In the case of the Glebelands 2013 Inquiry the SoS used a “totting-up” method of measuring harm to the Green Belt;

“the Secretary of State has identified moderate harm in respect of urban sprawl, moderate harm in respect of the merging of neighbouring settlements, and moderate harm to the visual appearance of this part of the GB.  The Secretary of State considers that together this represents a considerable level of harm. ”

” He also wishes to emphasise that national policy is very clear that GB reviews should be undertaken as part of the Local Plan process.”

So we appear to be in a situation where, as long as Castle Point council are in an apparent perpetual process of Local Plan making, the whole of the local Green Belt can be considered safe from development!

Residents should now be looking for a new, up to date cpbc Green Belt Review, based on the SoS’ guidance and embracing the protection afforded by Footnote 9 of the NPPF.

As was pointed out earlier in this post;

“Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, … unless: – ….  specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted – For example, those policies relating to …. land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, … and locations at risk of flooding.”

This appears to be the clear desire of the Secretary of State’s interpretation of planning direction. The archived cpbc Green Belt Review was dated 2013 and produced in-house in support of the rejected daft New Local Plan, and clearly out of line with the Secretary of State’s consideration of  levels of “harm.” A new GB Review should be commissioned urgently, indicating the protection available through NPPF Policies and Guidance!

It would appear that the Castle Point council’s Local Plan2016, despite their failure to comply with the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring local authorities, may have been more in tune with the Secretary of State’s interpretation of what is possible with Local Plan-making and stood a chance of being considered adoptable. Whilst an Inspector may feel the Local Plan2016 was worthy of withdrawal, seeking intervention via the Secretary of State, may supply a different decision, once the Duty to Cooperate has been complied.

More importantly, with Canvey Island in mind, is that NPPF Footnote 9 offers no  difference in the weight and importance that should be applied when considering whether a site is appropriate for development between that of Green Belt or Flood Risk!

Only in the minds of those in Control of Decision-making within Castle Point council, is Canvey Island deemed a “special case”!

If not now, then I do not know when, given the position of the cpbc Local Plan, and the direction given by the SoS, it would be more Timely and more Appropriate for Canvey Island Town Council to undertake a Neighbourhood Plan!

The Secretary of State is clear Footnote 9 should be applied to protect Green Belt from Harm.

It is obvious that an area within a Flood Risk Zone and with unresolved Surface Water Flooding issues, can expect that same level of protection using Neighbourhood Plan Policies under-pinned by that same Footnote 9!

Quite simply Canvey Island is thought to be unlikely to Flood. This is supported by no factual Evidence, simply that it is “unlikely”. The continual loss of Green Space to development on Canvey that serves as potential displacement for flood water, fails to register any concern to the planning decision makers!

The FloodRe insurance scheme is limited, limited so that it specifically discourages development in Flood Risk areas.

The list of properties excluded from the remit of Flood Re has been subject to significant debate however it has been agreed that the following properties will not be covered:

  • All commercial property
  • All residential property constructed since 1 January 2009
  • All purpose-built apartment blocks

Who will weigh this against Financial Sustainability? It appears nobody at Castle Point council!

It is time for the reservations contained within the NPPF Footnote 9 to be considered appropriately and evenly across the whole of Castle Point!

” ” All quotations lifted from the NPPF, Planning Guidance, Glebelands Inquiry and the Jotmans Farm Inquiry.

Thorney Bay, change of Use Over-Heard on the Canvey Grapevine! CPBC Local Plan issues?

It started as a Whisper, became a Rumour and has now reached Conjecture level on the Canvey Grapevine!

Thorney Bay, the apparent answer to the Castle Point Council’s Local Plan dreams, has become the subject of unconfirmed speculation. With the humiliating Withdrawal of the cpbc Core Strategy in 2011, it was considered “timely” by cpbc officers that Thorney Bay, despite it being sited within the Hazard range of Calor Gas and within a 3A Flood Zone, should come forward to provide a Housing Development of some 600 dwellings plus sheltered accommodation.

Thorney Bay then became the Backbone, the largest single development site, of Castle Point council’s daft Local Plan and surviving the GB sites cull to remain as the spine of the Local Plan2016, 5 year Housing Supply!

The Thorney Bay proposal passed in Principle by the cpbc development committee, whilst in the following months / years a 1st Phase proposal has gained Health and Safety Executive’s permission and is apparently overcoming the Flooding Objections to the fundamental requirements of the Environment Agency and the ecc Lead Local Flood Authority.

Now then; Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once!

A little Bird has told me, and I must say there is little foundation, so to speak, for this to be considered information, but it could be that the development may not be going much further!

To me this would not be a surprise, I would have thought a more likely idea would be for the developer to follow the Kings Park, and remove the static caravans and replace with Park Homes.

The build cost would be far less, the speed of development would be probably twice as quick and success of the venture equally, if not more so, financially successful as Kings Park!

What’s to lose?

Park Homes and Luxury Lodges can easily reach an asking price of £300,000, the site is opposite Thorney Bay Road, and residents would likely be of an age not too concerned with, the daily commute.

Now that the Canvey Bay Watch team have created such an attractive area of the promenade and beach front, this forms another selling point for potential Park Home buyers. I would have thought that the Canvey Bay Watch team should soon be knocking on the site owner’s door for financial support, should this development rumour come to fruition!

Thorney Bay 1

Photograph courtesy: Dave Harvey

The question for cpbc is whether these Park Homes should count towards the official Housing Supply.

On one hand these Park Homes “are suitable for residential use throughout the year and are built to last at least 50 years”! (Omar park and leisure homes). Although whether 50 years lifespan is considered permanent is challengeable, however, their success is, and there are people desiring to own them.

The Planning Inspector examining the Glebelands, Thundersley, Appeal did not consider the numbers at Kings Park should qualify for inclusion in building numbers, but that may have been due to cpbc being unable to clarify how many caravans were replaced by Park Homes.

We do know that of the caravans at Thorney Bay the Inspector concluded;

“But that does not necessarily mean that the Households now occupying caravans would have chosen that type of accommodation, in preference to bricks and mortar.”

Well, “bricks and mortar” these Park Homes ain’t! But the appeal of Park Home life is generally popular across the UK, so if people are choosing to buy into this type of accommodation, then there is an argument for these dwellings to be included into the Canvey Island Housing Supply count.

With our “Broken Housing Market” leading to the apparent need to revisit Pre-Fabricated Housing, these Park Homes may well have some scope.

Whether or not any Affordable Home supply can be squeezed into the equation will be upto the negotiating abilities of cpbc, so we won’t hold our breath on that one!

What could be expected is for some Canvey Island “bricks and mortar” dwellings to become available, for local young families hoping to get on the property ladder, as older Canvey residents move into the Park Homes.

It may be doubtful , should the development come into fruition, whether the Housing Need in the mainland part of the Borough be part satisfied, as it will be difficult to argue that this type of dwelling satisfies the cross market “bricks and mortar” Housing Need. In fact it probably increases the pressure on mainland site supply.

I remind you this is only speculation.

As a reference, below, I include part of the text of the cpbc Report on Residential use of Caravan and Park Home Sites 2013.

“It is clear from both Census data and from Council Tax data that an increase in the availability of caravans for residential use resulted in an increased housing supply of the order of 800 homes in Castle Point in the period from 2001 to 2011. This increase was largely as a result of the change of use of Kings Park and Thorney Bay Caravan Parks from holiday use to residential use.”

“To date, the Council has only included those caravans registering for Council Tax at Kings Park within the housing figures for the period 2001 to 2011. However, given that caravans at Thorney Bay were included as homes within the Census 2011 outcomes, and this will be reflected in population and household data moving forward, it is appropriate that the housing supply figures for the period 2001 to 2011 are appropriately adjusted to include these homes also.”

“The change of use of static caravans from holiday accommodation to residential accommodation has made a significant contribution to housing provision over the last decade (2001 to 2011). Approximately, 800 additional caravans moved into permanent residential use over this time period, primarily on the Kings Park and Thorney Bay sites. This is supported by evidence from the Census and from Council Tax records.”

“However, whilst some of this provision has contributed positively towards the community, in particular at Kings Park, the nature of the provision at Thorney Bay has had negative socioeconomic consequences both for the surrounding community and for the vulnerable families who have found themselves living at the site.”

“Due to these issues there is support for proposals to redevelop a significant proportion of the site for traditional homes. However, it is the intention of the owner to retain a smaller caravan park of 300 caravans for residential use towards the west of the existing site.”

“Assuming that the proposals to redevelop this site as proposed for traditional housing are delivered in full over the next 10 years, then it is unlikely that the number of households living in caravans in Castle Point will increase further between 2011 and 2021. Indeed, as a result of the development of traditional housing over this period, it is expected that the proportion of households living in caravans will reduce.”

“However, should the Thorney Bay site not be redeveloped as proposed, then there is the potential for a further 800 caravans moving from transient use into permanent residential use. This will increase further the number of households living in caravans, and the associated socio-economic issues arising from this. It is therefore imperative that the Council work alongside the site owners to encourage and facilitate the redevelopment of this site in an appropriate timeframe.”

Video copyright BBC

“Smoke Filled Rooms, Dodgy Housing Site Selection Processes and Failed Local Plans,” sound Familiar?

Yet another Local Plan is halted in its Tracks. In an Inspector’s Note, reminiscent of that sent to Castle Point Council during 2011 when Mr P.Crysell stated, amongst other concerns; 

“I consider there remain serious shortcomings in the (CPBC) Council’s Plan.” “These are firstly, the approach in relation to the Green Belt; secondly, the consequences of this on the distribution of growth across the Borough”

“I have reservations about the methodology employed and the way in which it appears to have been used, leading to inconsistent and inappropriate site selection.  For example, the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal is unclear as to why the most sustainable Green Belt site was discounted.”

“I consider it would be difficult to endorse a strategy which commits to Green Belt release in an area of potential high flood risk at Canvey Island yet fails to identify more than a token amount of land on the mainland where flooding is not a significant issue.”

The Shropshire Star commented of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan;

“It is pretty clear that a ‘smoke filled’ room process occurred behind closed doors with Cllrs where political rather than policy issues dominated – something the post 2004 Act changes was designed to eliminate.”  Shropshire Star

Evidence had emerged of a similar smoke filled room meeting in the CPBC Lead Group rooms, during which Canvey Island Green Belt was sacrificed so as to progress a Core Strategy document bent on protecting mainland Green Belt at all costs!

Of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan the Inspector commented;

Housing Site Selection Methodology

 7. You will recall the concerns that I raised at the Matter 8 hearing session in respect of this matter.  While I accept the need for a Plan’s evidence base to be proportionate, it is also the case that all parties need to understand why certain sites were allocated and why other sites were not allocated.

 8. In that context, I sought to examine the methodology that the Council has employed in selecting the 17 housing sites proposed for allocation in the Plan.  Unfortunately, the commentary set out in the Council’s (pre-hearing) written answer to my question in respect of this matter2 and in section 5 of the Housing Delivery Technical Paper3 contain only a brief summary of that process.  Indeed, the latter document states (para 5.6) that ‘the site selection or rejection reasons for each individual site can be found in the Integrated (Sustainability) Appraisal Report (2015)’ (the IA).

 9. However, Appendix X of the Integrated (Sustainability) Appraisal Report4 comments that ‘the IA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors including planning and deliverability, play a key role in the decision-making process’.  Bearing in mind the position set out in Housing Technical Paper as described above, this suggests to me an element of circular reasoning.  

 10. Clearly, the detailed selection of sites for allocation involves an element of planning judgement.  However, that judgment needs to be both explicit and transparent.  In short, there needs to be a clear ‘audit trail’ that shows how the final decisions were arrived at, and what factors were taken into account in making such decisions.

 11. In response to my questions along those lines at the Matter 8 Hearing session, your officers offered to table working spreadsheets that would give more information about how the Council reached its decisions in this regard.  I accepted that suggestion and allowed other parties the opportunity to make representations accordingly.  However, the document that was subsequently produced5 was not the working spreadsheet that had originally been offered.  Instead it represents a commentary, apparently prepared after the event, that seeks to apply planning considerations to some (but not all) of the sites that were considered at the ‘strategic fit’ stage of the site assessment process.  I have now been advised that the Council is unable to find the spreadsheets that were apparently referred to at the hearing session.

12. The evidence that has been submitted since the hearing session is inadequate for several reasons.  First, it does not represent the actual selection exercise, as it was prepared after the event.  Second, comments are only given on a number of some 315 sites considered at the ‘strategic fit’ stage of the assessment.  Over 200 sites are missing.  This represents a substantial gap in the evidence base.  While the Council comments that the sites listed are only those that scored 5 or above in that exercise, it is clear that some sites with a lower score were also assessed – and indeed subsequently allocated in the Local Plan.  Clearly, an additional sieving exercise had taken place prior to the one that is presented in the new evidence.  Third, it is clear from the comments made in this document that a number of sites that scored highly against the ‘strategic fit’ criteria were then discounted on the basis of their existing use.  It is unclear why these were not screened out at the earlier site assessment stage, at which the site’s development potential was considered in terms of various factors – including use.

 13. I note the Council’s responses to the specific comments made by representors in respect of this additional evidence7.  For the avoidance of doubt, the present note does not seek to comment on the detailed scores that have been assigned to specific sites in the IA.  However, I share a general concern raised by some parties in respect of strategic fit criterion 2 (promoting sustainable urban extensions) that it is not immediately clear why some large sites (notably those that have been allocated) were given a positive score in respect of that criterion while other large sites – also adjoining the urban area – were deemed to not comprise a sustainable urban extension.

16. Drawing these matters together, and noting that some further comments are yet to be submitted by the Council, it appears likely that I will reach a finding that the housing site selection exercise underpinning the Local Plan is flawed.  Such a finding would call into question my ability to reach a finding of soundness on a Local Plan containing these site allocations.

13 years on from the 2004 Act, that the Shropshire Star referred to, appears to have resulted in very little impact!

CPBC reverts to 1998 Local Plan “Opportunity Knocks”Again for Canvey to start our own Plan?

For those Castle Point Residents that are unaware of, or who have not received this communiqué, here is the official notice of withdrawal of the Local Plan2016, due to the failure of cpbc in their legal obligation of the Duty to Cooperate with Neighbouring local authorities.

castlepoint

Regeneration & Neighbourhoods
Council Offices,
Kiln Road,
Thundersley,
Benfleet,
Essex SS7 1TF
Tel: 01268 882200
Fax: 01268 882382
Date: 4th April 2017
Our Reference: SAR/PP/IE/020
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWN PLAN
PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LOCAL PLANNING) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2012
CASTLE POINT BOROUGH COUNCIL – NEW LOCAL PLAN 2016
In accordance with Section 22 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and Regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Castle Point Borough Council decided to withdraw the Castle Point New Local Plan 2016 on 29th March 2017.
Yours faithfully,
Local Plan & Regeneration Adviser
01268 882220 (Direct line)
This letter of Local Plan withdrawal effectively means that Castle Point Council’s current Local Plan is again the saved 1998 Local Plan! The outstanding work by cpbc and the other Neighbouring local authorities is expected to require approximately 2 years to complete.
This appears to create an opportunity for Canvey Island Town Council to revisit the issue of creating a Neighbourhood Plan for the Island Residents.
There are many good points in the cpbc1998 Local Plan such as the improvement of the road infrastructure including a new access road, and protection of Green Belt, whilst recognising the constraints on development of Flood Risk, Infrastructure, COMAH sites and Green Belt.
It may be possible to encompass policies in a Canvey Island Neighbourhood Plan that comply with the castle point adopted 1998 Local Plan and the NPPF, that would in turn lead to a Positive and Acceptable document for Canvey Island’s future.
A document that prioritise residents safety and well being, equality and quality of life, and most importantly include an appraisal of what constitutes appropriate development.
The Canvey Green Belt Campaign group have never hinted nor expressed a view that a Neighbourhood Plan could stop all development on Canvey Island.
What we have consistently stressed is that any development on Canvey should be appropriate, and limited in its delivery, in line with the need to maintain the population at current levels or lower given the Risk of flooding and the Hazardous Industries.
The current situation, without any Canvey Island Plan, means in effect, that practically all development on Canvey Island is given approval so as to alleviate Castle Point Borough’s chronic lack of Housing delivery.
A Canvey Island Neighbourhood Plan would stand as a Positive Document, regardless of its completion, for an Inspector to view as a reasonable and effective Plan for Canvey’s future, when weighed alongside the Next Local Plan devised by Castle Point council.
A Neighbourhood Plan that could be actively supported by Canvey Islanders.
In its previous considerations of a Neighbourhood Plan many points relevant then (August 2016) are irrelevant now, such as;
 all development sites already in the Draft 2016 Local Plan for Canvey Island would have to be carried forward into the Neighbourhood Plan;
failure of the cpbc Local Plan will give the Borough Council six months to submit a new Plan;
new planning laws state that any development proposed to be built on a flood plain would be sent to Government Ministers for consideration;
As it stands the previous motion put to Canvey Island Town Council to consider a Neighbourhood Plan was defeated, Unanimously by both political groups 8 votes – 0 votes.
Time for a Rethink and Getting Stuck In?
The Minutes of the Canvey Island Town Council’s debate on a Neighbourhood Plan can be viewed HERE

Never mind the Cost to Castle Point Residents ‘ave another Go! Plan before Cooperation spells Withdrawal!

The much Heralded Castle Point Local Plan2016, the answer to all of our problems, will officially be put to the Sword this evening.

There may be a shortage of Pink Sack Recycling Sacks in the coming weeks as cpbc staff dispose of the mountain of Evidence and Plan paperwork that has accumulated in the Core Strategy / Local Plan process!

The council Agenda Paperwork explains that there is NO gain to be made by continuing with the current Local Plan;

Independent legal advice has been obtained, and it concludes there is unlikely to be any legal basis for a challenge to the Planning Inspector’s findings.

The Planning Practice Guidance explains that “Where the Inspector concludes that the duty to cooperate or other basic procedural requirements have not been met, or there are fundamental issues regarding the soundness of the plan that cannot be addressed through modifications, it will be recommended that the submitted plan is not adopted. In these circumstances the local planning authority will be unable to adopt the Local Plan and it should be withdrawn…”

The Guidance goes on to explain that “Speedy withdrawal of a plan in such circumstances provides certainty to the local community, applicants and other interests about the status of the planning framework in the area. Until a revised plan is brought forward to adoption, any existing Local Plan policies will remain in place.”

…. the New Local Plan 2016 can carry no weight in making decisions on planning matters, because of the flaws identified by the Planning Inspector in its preparation.

It  (agenda paper) goes on to suggest that recent Planning Applications, either for approvals or dismissals, may have been unsound. Those that were approved against residents wishes are unchallengeable, whilst those dismissed against developers wishes may well be liable to Appeal!

Strikingly one such case was the approval of Flats in Foksville Road. Objections were made regarding the visual impact having no regard to the Canvey Town Centre Masterplan. The Masterplan was published spelling out that a design “theme” should be incorporated so as to add cohesion to the whole town centre, rather than allowing piecemeal approvals leaving us with a lack of coordinated design of shops and Flats.

In fact cpbc planning officers instructed development committee members during their consideration of the Foksville Road proposal;

 “whilst the Canvey Town Centre Master Plan is an adopted policy document it is at an embryonic stage and something of an aspirational document with limited commercial commitment. The proposals within the plan will not be delivered in the short or medium term and are unlikely to come to fruition in their current form. As such it is not considered that this document can carry significant weight in the determination of the current application. A reason for refusal based on conflict with the Canvey Town Centre Master Plan is unlikely to be supported on appeal.”

Consequently members of the “full” council will tonight be informed via agenda paperwork by contradictory evidence!:

“non-statutory supplementary planning guidance documents which have been prepared since that time which the Council has adopted for planning purposes, and which will remain in place:

Canvey Town Centre Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document July 2012″

If only for the Canvey Town centre regeneration’s sake, let us hope that at some of the councillors will take note!

In a Cart before the Horse statement in tonight’s officers advice paperwork they conclude that;

it is clear from the Planning Inspector’s findings that it is now necessary to put in place formal mechanisms to consider strategic matters.

7.5 To assist with this, a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been approved by all 5 South Essex local planning authorities and the County Council

Furthermore work has now commenced on a non-statutory joint strategic planning framework for South Essex

During the public examination of evidence behind the Duty to Cooperate failure, it was pointed out that the South Essex councils had considered and rejected a joint Plan for the area, at a very early stage in the Plan process! To have not then explored and carried out a cooperative future approach to the group of councils plan making process is illogical.

Some serious discussion is relevant to indicate where the fault lies for, what has fundamentally led to the failure of the cpbc Local plan2016!

Is this an officer or councillor led Plan? Whoever, has now involved Castle Point residents in even more unnecessary costs!

Future planning policy work would be described in any new Local Development Scheme with estimated costs.

Even more worrying, with the list of planning applications already lodged PLUS the Jotmans Farm proposal still in the hands of Secretary of State following the developer’s Appeal, is the position the council have left concerned residents in;

The withdrawal of the New Local Plan will means that the Council will now continue to use of the Adopted Local Plan 1998, supplementary planning documents and the NPPF for the control of development.

And just to finish off in true comedic optimistic fashion, the cpbc crystal ball forsees;

No definitive timeframe has yet been agreed for this work but it is likely to take in the order of two years.

No doubt at much great expense to residents!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.