Tag Archives: population growth

China Crisis = Answer to Canvey Island issues? Or – Castle Point’s Broken Local Plan Process “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary”???

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

So say, Castle Point borough council planning officers in their programmed approach to avoiding objections to each and every proposal for development on Canvey Island.

This programmed response, supporting perpetual development, is in respect of evading opposition and objection to the “Special Case” position the officers are ordered to adopt in consideration of Canvey’s Flood Risk Exception test.

Whilst Constraints on development in other areas of the borough are sited and strictly adhered to, as a matter of policy, similar approach to Canvey Island proposals appear less rigorously imposed.

Given that Canvey development should be constrained by the fact that the Island is a tidal Flood Risk Zone 3a area, is now deemed a Critical Drainage Area following the surface water flooding during 2014 and previously, as well as being the location of 2 Top Tier Comah hazardous industrial sites.

That there is only one access / egress point, that the Island’s dedicated Rapid Response (paramedic) Vehicle is being withdrawn and that, like other areas the Police and the Fire and Rescue service presence has diminished.

These factors, one would think given Canvey Island’s geographical position, may cause outsiders to wonder why castle point borough council planning department should be so manipulative, when they recite such Unsound Drivel as “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement”!

Higher up the local government ladder the planning department superiors have indentified in contrast, that on tidal Flood Risk alone, they consider that the population of Canvey Island should be limited to the level prior to 2011, OR LESS!

However cpbc Cabinet, Councillors, Officers and Planners ALL choose to ignore this apparently sensible and cautious approach to Housing Numbers, one can only assume, so as to limit the levels of apparently necessary, but unpopular, Housing Need elsewhere in the Borough!

Now whilst our local “public servants” propose and impose yet more development, both Housing and Industrial, onto Canvey Island under the pretext that, “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement” they would do well to appreciate what is going on far from here.

Local decision makers, in their desperation to support the Borough’s income stream and limit the perceived Housing Need on the mainland, are willing to overlook potential Hazards and Constraints that should, by Rights, limit the ever-increasing Canvey Island Population Growth, through the means of our broken Local Plan process!

This Blindfolded and Wreckless approach to Development Planning on Canvey Island, has directly led to the flooding of many properties during 2013 / 2014, and is continued unabated, despite the clear warning towards adoption of a more cautious approach following the Calor escape of 163 tonnes of liquified gas forming a  vapour cloud over the Island!

Whilst the efforts of the Essex Fire and Rescue Service to convince cpbc members that their vastly reduced level of cover for Canvey Island would be adequate in the event of a major accident at either of the 2 Hazardous sites, their claim should not serve as supporting evidence for continually increasing the Population of Canvey.

Castle Point, we believe, would be totally justified in adopting a Limited Population Approach to its Housing Supply through its Local Plan Process, especially where Canvey Island is concerned.

This approach would be fully justified and would protect local builders and developers alike.

An ever-increasing population has little or no justification in any of the reasons recited by cpbc in its flimsy evidence to direct the levels of development growth towards Canvey Island, indicated in their various versions of failed Local Plans .

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It is Amazing then to discover that a Far Eastern Country should have adopted a Plan that puts concerns for its Population and Environment first, by recognising the Need to Limit Population Levels.

Whilst we do not compare the population levels of Shanghai and Canvey Island, it does indicate that limiting population, rather than the contrived reasoning behind the proposal for the ever-increasing population numbers policy, as applied by Castle Point Council Strategic and Local Planners!

 “China’s financial hub of Shanghai will limit its population to 25 million people by 2035 as part of a quest to manage “big city disease”, authorities have said.

The State Council said on its website late on Monday the goal to control the size of the city was part of Shanghai’s masterplan for 2017-2035, which the government body had approved.
“By 2035, the resident population in Shanghai will be controlled at around 25 million and the total amount of land made available for construction will not exceed 3,200 square kilometres,” it said.
State media has defined “big city disease” as arising when a megacity becomes plagued with environmental pollution, traffic congestion and a shortage of public services, including education and medical care.

But some experts doubt the feasibility of the plans, with one researcher at a Chinese government thinktank describing the scheme as “unpractical and against the social development trend”.
Migrant workers and the city’s poor would suffer the most, predicted Liang Zhongtang last year in an interview with state media, when Shanghai’s target was being drafted.

The government set a similar limit for Beijing in September, declaring the city’s population should not exceed 23 million by 2020. Beijing had a population of 21.5 million in 2014. Officials also want to reduce the population of six core districts by 15% compared with 2014 levels.
To help achieve this goal authorities said in April some government agencies, state-owned companies and other “non-core” functions of the Chinese capital would be moved to a newly created city about 100 kilometres south of Beijing.
An exact date for when those offices will have to move has not been set, but Beijing officials have already begun reshaping the city’s population.

Tens of thousands of migrant workers were evicted from their homes beginning in November, after authorities launches a 40-day crackdown on unsafe buildings in the wake of a fire.
Many of China’s biggest cities also face surging house prices, stirring fears of a property bubble. Beijing and Shanghai have enacted strict rules on who can purchase property and the two cities are the most vulnerable if prices begin to tumble.
Shanghai had a permanent population of 24.15 million at the end of 2015, the official Xinhua news agency said last year.
The city has also said it would intensify efforts to protect the environment and historic sites as part of its masterplan.” *

As a further reminder, we make no apologies for reminding readers of the devastating effects on households Hazardous Accidents have the potential to cause, as seen in this Video recording.

Grateful thanks go to Ian Silverstein for use of his video.

*Report filed for the Guardian by; Benjamin Haas in Hong Kong and agencies
@haasbenjamin
Tue 26 Dec ‘17
Reuters contributed to this report

And for those who have read this far, here is a link to some music – China Crisis’ recording of “Wishful Thinking”.

We thought the title appropriate!

Advertisements

Why always Canvey? Because local factors are given too much weight! Independence Now? UPDATE

Castle Point Conservatives, in the face of world media coverage of the call  for Canvey Island’s Independence from Castle Point Borough Council’s control, have released a social media response on the issue. In the interests of balance we have included the release amongst the Comments below

Two weeks on from the Canvey Community Meeting during which the matter of either Equal Representation, or Independence and a complete breakaway from Castle Point Council were raised, we await details of further progress.

The issue made the National Press and has received some barbed and ridiculing remarks from local councillors and from social media commentators.

Whether there is the legal possibility of Canvey Island becoming its own local authority, we would not claim to know, however in these days of so called “Localism”, the option or possibility is well worth exploring!

COAT_OF_ARMS

What we do know is that since the formation of castle point borough council in 1974, Canvey Island has provided the vast majority of the borough’s Housing Growth.

The census period since the formation of castle point indicates between 1971 and 2011 Canvey Island saw an increase in population of over 42%.  The Mainland saw just a 2.4% increase during the same period!

And yet, castle point borough council continue to claim “the continued development of Canvey Island is necessary to sustain the local community and prevent the social and economic blight of the settlement”

With a mainland population growth of just 2.4% since 1971, Canvey residents are entitled to ask:  “why are there two totally different Housing Development Policy approaches to the two parts of the Borough?”

There is a clear and obvious explanation as to why, Historically, the vast percentage of Housing Growth in Castle Point is distributed towards Canvey Island, this was most subtly and politely identified by an Inspector as; “because local factors are given too much weight!”

Soon there is to be a change in the funding stream of local authorities. This will leave them far more reliant on income from Business Rates.

The potential loss of income from Canvey Island businesses would leave the mainland part of Castle Point looking seriously at its funding stream,

“Castle Point’s employment space is predominantly industrial, with a relatively small level (7%) of office provision.

The main supply of industrial sites is in Canvey Island, away from strategic roads and the areas of stronger demand.”

Retail space appears more equally distributed across the Borough, although the exploitation of Canvey West appears to be the only desired expansion of new Retail development sites, whilst the area around south of Rayleigh Weir now appears constrained within Castle Point

“The Main Employment Areas in Castle Point emphasise yet again the uneven distribution;

1 the Charfleets industrial estate on Canvey Island (30 ha);

2 the Manor Trading estate in Thundersley (8.1 ha);

3 the mixed use Stadium Way employment area in Benfleet (5.5 ha);

4 the large OIKOS Refinery and Calor Gas sites on Canvey Island;

5 the town centres of Benfleet, Hadleigh, Canvey Town and Tarpots, which contain mainly retail and leisure uses and some small offices.”

Quite clearly it can be seen where castle point borough council’s funding stream will be coming from, and going to!

The area controlling the largest influence in the Borough accord with neither the area supplying the Population Growth, nor the Business Growth for the borough! 

The question is who needs whom most?

And yet the ridiculing of the suggestion of Canvey Island becoming Independent has most loudly come from lead cpbc councillors themselves!

During these times of promised, so called Localism, we eagerly await to see whether some substance behind the possibility of Independence will emerge, sooner rather than later!

And more importantly whether the Residents of Canvey Island will be given the opportunity to voice their Opinion!

Editor’s addendum

Despite the barbed criticism of the actual idea that Canvey Island might investigate its Independence, including “Ridiculous”, “Political Nonsense” and of there being “No Hope of Independence”, we should point out that there are Boroughs with a smaller population than Canvey’s.

Namely, Rutland, West Somerset, City of London and the Isles of Scilly.

 

 

 

Canvey Flatsland – Island to be Re-named after rumours of Jellicoe future emerge?

The Admiral Jellicoe Public House site is to be re-developed into between 40 and 50 Flats, according to rumour that has reached us!

pub

Preparation work to the site appears to have commenced, this despite a search of the cpbc Housing Portal revealing no application paperwork. If there is paperwork published, then it is very well hidden.

The opportunity for residents to comment appear to have been denied, if the rumour is true. Local parking, for one, must be a huge concern for local residents and businesses alike. The surface water flooding issue will not doubt be dismissed by reassurances supported by officers!

The probability that the government’s call for a Brownfield Site Register will include the Admiral Jellicoe site within Part 2 of the Register, sites granted planning Permission in Principle, is highly likely if cpbc’s Register is published by the December 2017 due date.

Alongside this is the news that the option has been confirmed to consider replacing the Canvey Island Paddocks with a new Hall financed by even more Flats.

The numbers of Flats needed to finance a new Paddocks Hall will undoubtedly be very many, given the Viability issues with the lack of provision of Affordable Housing emerging from lucrative developments of late.

The Canvey High Street is also the location for 2 more Flatted development sites, the old Dairy, and the 125-127 approved proposal, whilst the old Council Building in Long Road is also under threat from the Government call to release local authority land for Housing Development.

The Castle Point Council Crystal Ball indicated this profound finding;

“It is not thought that flatted developments on Canvey will become viable however, due to the additional costs associated with flood resistance and resilience.” *

Well the current frenzy of Canvey Flats development has blown that consideration out of the water!

On social media of late protests that Canvey isn’t more likely to be subject to development than any other part of the borough have emerged from mainland sources. And yet Thorney Bay is the largest actively promoted development site!

More relevant than Housing numbers as an indication of castle point council’s Housing Distribution record, is the population growth in the Borough.

During the last Census decade the distribution of the population increase, Canvey Island was 2.6% up whilst the Mainland saw just a 0.8% increase!

During the time period Castle Point has existed as a Borough; 

Historically, between 1971 and 2001 Canvey Island saw an increase in population of over 40%.  The Mainland saw just a 2.4% increase during the same period.

Quite clearly the demand exists for Housing, exactly where, and why in Castle Point, may require some close examining!

The removal of 8 Green Belt sites from the Local Plan Housing site Supply is to be commended, however the driver for this is questionable as a strategic area in the north of the Borough is to be promoted for release despite it being Green Belt, albeit partially previously developed. Only 1 notable site, of these 8 Green Belt sites, being on Canvey Island.

The cpbc focus of targeting Housing on Canvey Island appears to border on obsessive.

As recent as the 2016 Local Plan amongst their “evidence” to support Housing growth distribution the Sustainability Assessment focussed as early as Pages 4 and 15 of a 258 page document this point was repeated twice!;

“This has caused some people to choose to live in poor quality accommodation at Thorney Bay Caravan Site resulting in health and social issues arising. Housing land supply should be sufficient to enable a stable and regular supply of new homes that respond to local demand”

We suggest that in such a small Borough as Castle Point the focus on the “local” in Housing distribution, especially given the constraints, is too tightly focussed on Canvey Island!

*CPBC Strategic Housing Land Availability 2014

Photograph: Echo

 

Castle Point housing Growth issues not unique?

The number of affordable homes built in England in 2015-16 fell to its lowest level for 24 years, new data shows. There were 32,110 built, compared to 66,600 in the previous year, according to figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

This issue was highlighted, or should we say “low-lighted”, in Castle Point when the developers at the lucrative Kiln Road housing site were granted permission by the local authority to renege on the agreed delivery of affordable housing – claiming the level of delivery was unviable!

Further local housing problems will emerge with the slow reduction in local authority owned properties transferring into private ownership.

Castle Point Council explain that; “Most Council tenants are able to apply to purchase the property in which they live at a discounted price, this is called the “Right to Buy”.                                                                                                                                                                    If you are eligible to buy your home the level of discount you will receive will depend on your “qualifying period”, but the maximum discount you can receive is set annually at a nationally level. For 2014/2015 this is  £77,000.”

Thorney Bay Beach Camp, Canvey Island, Essex

copyright Jason Hawkes

Whilst we await the neighbouring local authorities responses to CPBC Local Plan Examination Inspector’s enquiry as to the levels of cooperation with castle point council in the plan-making process the pressure to develop mounts.

It appears the problem will attempt to be handled by increasing urban densities and the releasing of open green space.

The distribution of employment and development across the UK and the control of population growth appears not to be an attainable answer.

“It is projected that the number of households in the UK will reach 32.5 million by 2036, an increase of 4.8 million (17.2%) from 2016.13 As figure 3 illustrates, this household increase is hugely variable by region across the country. It is even more varied by district. For instance in Tower Hamlets the number of households is projected to increase by 51.8% between 2016 and 2036 compared to Barrow-in-Furness where the number of households is expected to decrease by 4.9% over the same period.

Local authorities often face different challenges when providing viable and appropriate land for development. In Sevenoaks, for example, 93% of land is classified as green belt which heavily restricts opportunities for development in the local area. Similarly in areas such as Oxford and Cambridge development is restricted by local authority boundaries. Although there is a need and ambition to build new housing, central measures aimed at driving new housebuilding are often irrelevant in these areas as there simply isn’t enough viable land to build on. Councils are often left with available plots that are too small to attract a larger developer’s investment. These smaller plots could potentially be used to bring smaller and more innovative developers in to local authority areas or even be used by the council themselves to build more homes. Land supply is, of course, one variable in the housebuilding process.

But housing markets do not begin and end where one local authority meets another, so a more strategic view is needed.”

source; Localis

 

 

Green Belt Release 8.2%! Hold onto your Hats at Castle Point!

Castle Point Green Belt is a controversial commodity, developers propose its development, councillors appear split on whether it can be protected, on various sites’ value and which or whether sites should retain the Green Belt status!

Rather than sniping away here and there, London should follow Manchester’s example with a joined-up approach across the Capital’s Boroughs, including the south east counties that border the city.”

The need for more Housing is obvious, especially given the growing population. Identifying suitable sites for development appears less than a scientific process.

The Local Plan2016 expects cpbc and neighbouring authorities to attempt to cooperate strategically where Housing, Business and Infrastructure is concerned. However if unsuccessful the Plan will not necessarily fail.

Government expects local authorities to interpret the planning guidance and constraining factors in arriving at a local Housing Need number.

Population growth is a national issue the contributing factors of which local authorities have little control over. It would be reasonable to expect there to be a strategic approach to the issue of housing the growing population, that is, how many and where.

Castle Point council have demonstrated a “small-minded” approach to local planning. In the first instance the lead group decided to approve a plan that agreed to release Green Belt on Canvey Island alone. Having wrestled with making progress with such a plan, and rejecting the assistance of the Planning Inspector’s guidance, the plan was withdrawn and a New Local Plan formed. The New Local Plan included Green Belt sites that appeared likely to be approved with developers apparently ready to build. This Plan was unpopular with residents and eventually the Local Plan2016 became the 3rd plan published.

Most recently Greater Manchester, in an effort to address housing Need, has elected to plan for an 8.2% release of Green Belt. In contrast the Castle Point Local Plan2016 intends; “This plan retains 99% of the Green Belt extent identified in the 1998 Local Plan.”

If the Local Plan2016 was to bring forward the contentious safe-guarded land at North West Thundersley the Plan would indicate an intention to release 6% in total of Castle Point’s Green Belt.

Whilst the Manchester intention to release 8.2% of Green Belt is considered “remarkable” an area equivalent of 6% of Castle Point’s Green Belt given the issues that face the Borough in terms of road infrastructure, the NHS situation and Flood Risk could be considered equally remarkable.

Developers will point to the willingness to release Green Belt in areas of no interest to them as being a weakness in the local authority’s defence of the Local Plan2016’s site selection and green belt protection policies.

The ripple effect of Manchester’s decision to release 8.2% may, in future, influence expectation of Local Plan examining Planning Inspectors.

It will be a matter of whether localism should or should not prevail.

Paul Wellman wrote for Estates Gazette:

pwellman  Paul Wellman can be followed on Twitter via @PaulWellman_EG