Tag Archives: Referendum

Canvey Island Nimbyism? RTPI attack on Ageism amounts to Stereotyping – who else to “Watch this Space”?

Protest against Green Belt development in Castle Point, is definitely not the sole domain of Canvey Islanders.

Whilst we feel we have more to protest about than most, despite being considered to be “not living in the Real World”, even by some of our own representatives, it cannot be argued that issues facing Canvey Island are not unique.

Whether it be the fact Canvey Island is the most densely urbanised part of the Borough, the removal of Canvey’s Rapid Response Vehicle, the 3rd access Road saga, the broken drainage system, the Roscommon Way Racers, lack of street lighting on unadopted roads, or living alongside 2 major Hazardous Industrial sites, concerned Canvey residents are often greeted with a “them again?” luke-warm welcome!

But that is not to exclude our mainland neighbours who are equally willing to object against planning issues where Green Belt and other supposedly worthy development proposals are concerned.

Now it appears it has been recognised that the majority of those willing to get involved in the planning process are of a certain age group.

“Currently, the majority of those who engage in planning are over 55 years. Response rates to a typical pre-planning consultation are around 3% of those directly made aware of it. In Local Plan consultations, this figure can fall to less than 1% of the population of a district. Yet planning decisions are based upon this sample.
Well-managed consultations start early, seek a more balanced engagement and encourage the ‘strategic’ thinkers to engage, but they too frequently fail to engage with the younger age groups – yet we are planning their future. What other organisation would base important decisions on this level of response without checking to see if it was ‘representative’. Yet this is what happens in planning decisions.”

So says Sue Manns, the Regional Director of national planning consultancy Pegasus Group, in an article for the Royal Town Planning Institute. Pegasus being the planning group involved in the Jotmans Farm development Inquiry.

The article appears to suggest that through the lack of engagement with a “younger” consultee audience, modern development plans struggle to be adopted through the objections from those more senior amongst us residents.

“We need to start a nationwide conversation around the spatial impacts of technology change, embrace young and dynamic thinkers and those who see change as exciting, and let’s rebalance the objection-driven engagement culture which has dominated planning over the past 50 years.”

Whilst Canvey residents may not be considered by cpbc, and perhaps Sue Manns, to be dynamic thinkers, they would be wrong in their assumption to consider us as not recognising change when it is exciting, as long as it is realistic!

The cpbc promise of the grandly titled “Canvey Island Town Centre Regeneration Masterplan” is a case in point. Unfortunately scepticism was well founded, as the lack of tangible progress alongside the failure to incorporate the proposed Dutch / seaside architectural features into new proposals, has led to blandly designed and cramped Flatted and Retail developments to pass approval!


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Building materials to reflect the overall palette, drawing on the Dutch, Coastal Town and Art Deco influences to create a scheme with a unique identity.
Colours should be vibrant to establish the new retail area as a destination. Shop front improvements along Furtherwick Road should be designed with the distinctive features of an English Seaside Town.

With prose being used, similar to that above, to encourage support for aspirational design schemes, it is hardly any wonder that Sue Manns has identified a failure of the industry to engage with a younger audience in planning consultations. The lack of younger generation involvement may be true, but that is not a reason to support the thought that adult and senior views should be ignored simply to support any particular development plan that may indeed, not be suitable for a particular area.

We on Canvey Island have seen the value of “local knowledge” within the Plan making process!

When the 2009 cpbc Core Strategy attempt at a local plan was published the Canvey Green Belt Campaign, through “local knowledge” recognised the attempt to mislead the Examining Inspector with its “inappropriate housing site selection” policies, which “commits to Green Belt release in an area of potential high flood risk”, as well as it being obvious he would not be “convinced that maintaining the current distribution of development across the Borough is justified given the existing constraints”.

This despite cpbc officers being party to the clear intent of the mainland lead group to allow themselves to be influenced by, and produce a local plan driven by, what the Inspector politely described as “Local Factors”!

In this light, of course we HAD to get involved, despite being within the age bracket that Sue Manns and her planner colleagues have an issue with!

Committing to attending a 2 week Examination following production of a lengthy consultation submission is not achievable by all, however when your own local authority have schemed and approved such a discreditable document, it must be challenged and exposed for what it was. Not everybody is in a position, or willing to commit to taking part in plan making process, as it bound to require taking unpaid leave or using holiday periods. Something those with young families for instance may be unwilling or unable to commit to.

Perhaps Planners and developers would prefer that no residents, whatever age bracket they fall into, take part in the planning process? One thing we did find was that the Examining Inspectors appear to welcome local input!

The feedback from our Referendum equally challenged Sue Mann’s assumption that a younger demographic would automatically give the different response that she and her  planner colleagues would hope for, by achieving “a more balanced engagement and encourage the ‘strategic’ thinkers”.

Castle Point council gave evidence, indeed if it can be considered of value, that they extended their consultation to specifically target established groups of youngsters as part of the Core Strategy consultation.

What the Canvey Green Belt Campaign witnessed however, was perfectly clear. By calling on residents at their homes and putting to them our Referendum question, it was absolutely clear, that the loss of yet more Canvey Green Space to the Borough’s Housing Need was indisputably opposed across generations!

Planners may begin to achieve the respect they crave if they were more driven by an local area’s actual needs. Aspirational architectural computer imagery with green spaces screening dense urbanisation deceive nobody.

Equally the promises of Affordable Homes, later challenged as being unviable, is a deception we are getting more and more familiar with, especially in the light of Green Belt release and sky high housing prices.

RTPI and Sue Manns, nice try, but must try harder!

ps Lets not feel too much sympathy for the industry: “The chief executive of housebuilder Persimmon has insisted he deserves his £110m bonus because he has “worked very hard” to reinvigorate the housing market.” (Guardian)

A link to the Canvey Island Town Centre Regeneration Masterplan can be found HERE.

The full blog post by Sue Manns can be found via this LINK.

Continue reading


Oh the Irony! Councillors Propose a Referendum!

Canvey Islanders feel they are Not Listened to!

Hence they held a Referendum to Protect what is left of the Island’s Green Belt, then a Petition was completed objecting to large scale development.

All to No Avail.

Both Referendum and Petition were Ignored by castle point borough council!


Now we learn that it is the intention of Rochford councillors to carry out a Referendum over the district’s Local Plan.

Councillor John Mason, leader of the Green and Rochford District Residents Group said that during the early stages of the new housing plan, residents have complained “they feel that they will not be listened to” about their council and councillors.

No doubt Rochford council will spot the opportunity of the “Tick Box” exercise, as have castle point council, in suggesting this fills the community involvement requisite!

You may well remember that the Canvey Green Belt Campaign supporters went out in 16 groups of 2, over a two week period seeking the views of residents about cpbc plans to develop Canvey Island Green Belt.

Over 6,500 votes were cast and under MP Rebecca Harris, cllrs Ray Howard and Dave Blackwell’s observation an objection via 99.13% of voters was recorded!

Typically the daft Local Plan 2014 ignored these views!

Following this a Petition was raised by a group of 6 Canvey Ladies and a total of 12,000 names were added to their Petition list. The Petition was against large scale development on Canvey, whilst the opportunity to protect the local builders could remain.

The Petition has also had No Impact with those controlling cpbc!

This despite the constraints that would normally be applied to development in areas such as Canvey!

Whilst Rochford does not have constraining issues, such as 2 Hazardous Industrial sites, being in a Flood Risk Zone 3 area, having the access issues that Canvey is restricted by nor the whole of the town being a Critical Drainage Area, we do wish the Rochford councillors success in their Referendum.

Far greater success and acknowledgement than Canvey Island residents received by the controlling group of our local authority!

The Echo article on the Rochford Referendum news is available via this LINK HERE.

Calling Canvey Residents – sign the Petition and Shop Local!

The Canvey Island community Petition initiative, that emerged from the residents CPBC Local Plan information, meeting arranged by Castle Point councillor Martin Tucker, continues to gain momentum.

Concerned at the level of proposed housing development on an Island with well known infrastructure issues led to both an on-line Petition and a Paper version.

Signing the petition did lead to Cllr Tucker losing some of his voting rights at Castle Point Council where Canvey Green Belt issues are concerned, however this reflects worse on the Borough Council than Cllr Tucker as the focus of the petition is on large scale development rather than Green Belt in particular.

It could be suggested that for Castle Point Council to adopt their approach against a Canvey councillor protects the balance of power that the mainland enjoy.

A similar approach has not been taken towards certain senior councillors who have made public their particular Green Belt interests.

The response on Canvey to the petition has not been confined to residents, even businesses have actively shown support by displaying petition forms for shoppers to sign.

Well done to those residents collecting signatures, the Petition will sit nicely alongside the Canvey Green Belt Campaign’s Referendum in reminding our Borough and Town councillors that more should be done through the Planning process to protect residents in a vulnerable area.

Businesses supporting the Petition include:                                                                                     DISCOUNT PET SUPERSTORE
WELL PHARMACY                                                                                                                                     FORTUNA STORES


Green Belt, a fresh approach from Castle Point Cabinet? Or is time up for our Green Spaces?

A crucial report concerning the future of Castle Point’s Green Belt will be discussed, or noted, on Wednesday the 17th July 2013 at the Borough’s Cabinet meeting. The implications on the new Local Plan from the Glebelands Appeal decision are immense.
As with the Planning Inspector’s letter criticising the withdrawn Core Strategy there appears a certain amount of local political opinion influencing the interpretation of the Appeal decision within the Cabinet report.

The Officer writing the report suggests that the Appellant’s querying of the existence of a Green Belt in Castle Point was a key part of their case.
In effect this appears to have been an aside to the Appellants main aim to prove that special circumstances exist so as to allow development at Glebelands. From viewing some of the proceedings and reading the Appeal paperwork it was obvious that the claim that the Green Belt no longer existed in Castle Point was to serve as a distraction, with the effect of watering down the Council’s case.

To spin this at Cabinet as a local success story is an irrelevance.

The Inspector, in his report, referred to Flood Risk 3 times when considering the 5 year housing supply and the future development sites in the Borough. Interestingly the officer’s Cabinet report fails to mention this. In 2010 Scott Wilson published the Flood Risk Assessment as part of the evidence base for Castle Point’s Core Strategy, the Cabinet still do not adopt the cautionary approach to development on Canvey that is recommended within this document.

The Local Plan’s 5 year housing supply illustrated how Castle Point Cabinet elect to allocate housing development at a ratio in response to existing population distribution rather than a land based allocation. This will result in an even more urbanised area within the Flood Zone.
This is not good planning practise and non-compliant with the NPPF requisites.

The Planning Inspector considered that the Glebelands Green Belt function of preventing towns merging was not effective enough considering the amount of land on the Bowers Gifford side of the A130. The Secretary of State disagreed thus protecting Glebelands from development.

If the Inspectors decision was to prevail there would appear to be a possibility of the option of the Blinking Owl site coming into development rather than the more unpopular and “sensitive” sites that developers are suggesting.

The problem with that is that Persimmon may be able to use the same argument with the Jotmans site.

Should our local authority be forced to allocate Green belt for development? The Canvey Green Belt Campaign believe it is wrong for any areas to be released, not without an open discussion as to the necessity.
Some growth is required, but not above local need, if it means destroying green areas.
On Canvey the Authority point to areas of deprivation as a reason for housing development preferring to deny residents the facility to access to some open green space. How is this a means of alleviating deprivation?

Castle Point Council Leader cllr Pam Challis was brave to admit that mainland Green Belt needed to be given over to development during the Core Strategy process, in an Echo interview.
This, understandably, caused consternation amongst councillors and residents alike.

Now it appears there are signs that our Green Belt boundaries are likely to come under consideration during the new Local Plan process.
Councillor Dick has publically questioned whether if the Barrrett’s proposal for houses on Daws Heath/ Rayleigh Road were to come forward, would this change the game plan of Essex County Council regarding Deanes School.

Is this a hint of compromise?

No Councillors have as yet come forward with evidence to support limiting development to brown field land as being sufficient to support future growth.

This will result in residents showing their disagreement at the polling station, and may well, in the long run, prove detrimental towards Canvey Island as was the case during the Core Strategy!

Forbodings are obvious within the Appeal Report as to the levels of development.
The Inspector disputed the Council’s 5 year housing supply as having only 0.7 years worth of sound development.
Clearly the Council evidence was not presented in a convincing fashion at the Glebelands Appeal. Detail must be put into the presentation, or more realistic sites will be required.

Better still, a clear policy statement as to whether we are able to challenge the population projection levels, and an indication as to whether Localism will, by the time we get around to publishing a Local Plan allow Castle Point to set it’s own housing growth levels.

At the moment reliance falls onto the old disolved RSS housing levels plus past under achiement, described as grossly inadequate by the Inspector.

The dwellings at Thorney Bay are likely to be treated as those at Kings Park and may not be allowed to count as part of the housing supply.
Even though they house many people with some attracted from outside of the district!
A clear strategy will be needed on these sites from the Council when drawing up the Local Plan.

Only in last weeks Echo cllr Smith suggested the district suffered from congestion, in opposing the proposal by Thurrock’s MP to locate the new Thames crossing at Canvey Island. And yet it was cllr Smith who announced that Canvey was to be allocated 46% of the housing distribution in the 5 Year Housing Supply.
We are either too congested or in need of growth. Clarification is needed, and urgently, hopefully he will expand on this at the Cabinet meeting.

If there is to be restricted development, we need to plan for an ageing population, other areas operate under this so called draw back. We believe that an ageing population can offer the local economy some great benefits, as the retired community are far more likely to spend their income locally.

Does our Green Belt matter, well Canvey’s referendum left no doubt about our thoughts and wishes. The poll, held door to door, did not indicate a “silent majority” in favour of development as cllr Stanley suggested.
Rather the 99.13% in support of retaining the remaining Canvey Green Belt was clear indication of the local view.

It appears there may be more budget required for contracting further evidence work to support the Local Plan, suggesting a further drain on local resources. A budget was previously allocated, approx £250,000, but wording in the Cabinet Agenda reads: “it should be noted that progressing the New Local Plan will incur costs that will be detailed when a revised Local Development Scheme is presented to the Cabinet.”

Let us hope for a new approach to the Local Plan, that will be welcomed by residents, is soon to be forthcoming.
The Secretary of State has recently issued clear views of what our Government’s intentions are for protecting the Green Belt, if there is any untoward altering of Castle Point’s GB boundaries then there will be a price to be paid.
Inspiration from Councillors and Officers is required.

Initial Consultation Ends

The Castle Point Borough Council’s New Local Plan Consultation has closed.

Yet again the responses have been nowhere near as many as the response to the Canvey Green Belt Campaign’s Referendum on the green Belt.

There is a continuing problem for the Council in communicating with residents. This will encourage the Council in believing they have carte blanche over the compilation of the New Local Plan as far as residents wishes are concerned.

A firm stance based on a sound evidence base will be required for the Borough to not be swamped with development.

There was a flurry of submissions, no doubt held back to see what was included within the new National Planning Policy Framework.                                                        The supposed “golden thread” at the heart of the NPPF “ the presumption in favour of sustainable development” has been seized upon as a green light for developers, locally known as a Land Grab!

Recent submissions in the consultation list show entries on behalf of Redrow Homes and Barratts, with their interests in multi Mainland sites, and on Canvey, from Persimmon, and Morrison Supermarket.

Royal Mail, Questionnaires and all that…….

D.Eastabrook writes “I described the New Local Plan questionnaire and business reply envelope to neighbours but they could not recall ever getting the consultation document in the first place. How can we tell if Castlepoint Council has sent out these consultation documents to all householders on Canvey Island?”

This is an interesting observation, and similar to observations formed during / following the previous Core Strategy public consultation process.  Castle Point Council were criticised by residents, doubting the thoroughness of the mailing out of the CS Brochure and Questionnaire.

I remember the Echo Newspaper being involved in reporting of their examining of the Royal Mail postage paperwork indicating that indeed the paperwork in question had been sent to all households. The Royal Mail has a reasonable delivery record so the question remains “why do residents feel they have not been consulted on the New Local Plan?”

Disregarding the actual benefit of residents being consulted, I have no doubt the Council must be frustrated over the response and feedback they receive. This opens the question, why?

The obvious answer is “apathy”. In all areas there will be focus / campaign groups that will give opinions and be willing to take part in consultation. Some residents are political and follow this by joining a local/National Party and even become involved enough to become Councillors. Generally though it has to be accepted residents have enough “on their plate” providing for their family’s needs and everyday life. It may well be that when the Council’s envelope containing the Questionnaire is opened the automatic reaction is “not another piece of Council gumpf” and is put aside for later, at best, at worst it goes straight in the bin. There are residents that mistrust the way responses are compiled and summarised and so refuse to take part.  The Council have with the help of Campaign Groups  and Neighbourhood Meetings attempted to reach more people. They have not, I believe, taken advertising space in local free papers. Even so I have been told by an Officer that the overall response has been encouraging.

Should the response reach 3000, in a Borough of 80,000+ this would represent just 4% of the Castle Point community. So we face the prospect of the New Local Plan being influenced by National Government policies, developers and active campaign groups, and decided by Cabinet and Councillors. Another way of viewing this may be “he who shouts loudest” is listened to. It is unfortunate that Castle Point, although containing four towns, is generally divided into Mainland and Island. For our part our campaign has focussed on Planning Policies after receiving the mandate to make representations following our Island-wide Referendum. It has been frustrating that whilst our submissions appear not to be  disputed, they had no influence on the Core Strategy. We were left to rely on the impartiality of the Planning Inspector and his Examination. His recommendation was, not surprisingly, that the Council should “withdraw” the document concerned by it’s “soundness”. The Local Authority decided to soldier on, probably tactically, as the Localism Bill neared completion. Only as Mainland Green Belt land came under pressure of being included in the sites required for development, and following the reaction from Mainland residents, did the Councillors, in fear of losing their ward seats, react and withdraw the Core Strategy. The New Local Plan process was then put in motion, in the knowledge that in the interim two Mainland Green Belt sites and four Island sites may come forward with Applications for development, the number of dwellings if approved reliant on Canvey taking the majority, some may say “as per usual.”

This takes us nicely back to D.Eastabrook’s concern of how many residents have received Questionnaires and been consulted, whereas if the previous process is an example, why are Canvey residents consulted anyway?

There is a need for local Councillors to make decisions in a more Statesman like fashion. The NPPF requires sustainable developments and sites should not be decided upon by “knee-jerk” re-actions from local Councillors for our New Local Plan to be found “sound”.