Tag Archives: Roscommon Way

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

Advertisements

Canvey Island, is there Foundation for Park Homes Boost at Roscommon Way’s Expense!

It almost appears inevitable that Canvey Island will once again supply the bulk of the Borough’s Housing Delivery in the near future!

The all important Local Plan 5 Year Housing Supply will be boosted, or drained, by the success of the Sandy Bay venture at the Thorney Bay caravan site.

The potential for 1,000+ dwellings, will impact upon the area for better or worse, one of the major impacts, is seemingly the death knell of the Roscommon Way final extension. That is unless the cpbc cabinet’s appeal to Essex County Council to intervene, produces a significant U-turn in the developer’s plans for the Park Homes site.

From the Map below it is difficult to envisage a different route for the Roscommon Way extension that would not divide or disrupt the Sandy Bay site and its community, nor one that would not involve substantial Compulsory Purchase Orders.

Screenshot (3)

copyright: Google

The Sandy Bay development is aimed at the over 50’s and retirees, people who will have invested substantial sums and expect the use of the facilities on offer as well as an element of peace and quiet. A main commuter route that may divide the Park Homes site would prove an obstacle in creating the proposed facility. One can only hope that ECC can come up with a solution, otherwise the almost annual, call for road infrastructure improvement funding for Canvey Island, will be added to that of Canvey Way and Somnes Avenue!

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 gave the Thorney Bay site the Green Light to switch tack from the application for 600+ “bricks and mortar dwellings, to an even more numerous Park Home development.

” ‘Park Home’ is the industry name for a caravan which is used for residential purpose.

National Planning Policy, as reflected in the NPPF, requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to produce Local Plans that will deliver the full, Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN), for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. The Government’s online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out the methodology for assessing housing need; it refers to specific types of housing which should be considered. No reference is made to Park Homes or residential caravans. Accordingly, there is no duty for LPAs to forward plan for provision of this type of housing.”

“”…the needs of people residing in or resorting to their district with respect to the provision of-  (a) sites on which caravans can be stationed…”

This suggests that local housing authorities (this includes District Councils and London Borough Councils) will need to start forward planning for provision of residential caravans.
This is a significant step change from other recent planning legislation because it is the first time non-gypsy caravans have been recognised as having a role in contributing towards the supply of housing in a given area.” *

All along CPBC have stated that their planning control powers are restricted to the point of no influence, this despite the apparent desire through the many versions of their Local Plan intending to seek central funding to provide the residents to the Eastern and Southern part of Canvey Island relief from the congested routes off of and onto the Island.

A balance between Homes, Congestion Relief and Profit, with congestion relief finishing an out of site 3rd!

Prior to the 2016 Housing Act it may have been necessary for a development application for Sandy Bay to have gone through the planning channels at CPBC. An apparent similar proposal went before Chelmsford Council’s planners, this site also is subject to Flood Risk so would have required sending to the Environment Agency, as consultees, for consideration. 

The use of the 2016 Housing Act, allows the Sandy Bay site to evolve outside of the Local Plan and cpbc planning processes.

Essex County Council may also have reservations in pursuing the remainder of the Roscommon Way link, as the original phases, whether as a cost saving exercise or not, were constructed with a shortened Life Span.**

The completion, however, of the final phase of Roscommon Way would increase usage of the existing phases from commuter, leisure and industrial vehicles, both hazardous and non-hazardous. ECC would need to ask what would be the likely effect of the increased usage on the road foundations, and subsequently the hazardous pipework beneath the existing Roscommon Way, especially where vehicles are filtered into the single lane areas of the carriageway?

Usually the provision of new Highways are restricted by the levels of new Business Use, rather than a level of commuter congestion. The completed stages of the Roscommon Way fulfilled this requirement, it will need compelling evidence, which may have come from a traditional “bricks and mortar” development at Thorney Bay, for the completion phase to be realised.

The problems of developing on Canvey Island are manifold, that one developer appears to understand ways of traversing these obstacles, is clear.

The residents of Canvey Island  are now encouraged by cpbc to direct their hopes and protest for highway congestion relief towards Essex County Council!

*The views of Sanderson Weatherall.                                                            http://sw.co.uk/property-consultancy/planning/911-the-housing-and-planning-act-2016

** http://planning.chelmsford.gov.uk/Planning/lg/dialog.page?Param=lg.Planning&org.apache.shale.dialog.DIALOG_NAME=gfplanningsearch&viewdocs=true&SDescription=14/00722/FUL

Roscommon Way to remain a Race Track until the thorny issue of Sandy Bay development is completed?

Any thoughts that Roscommon Way will serve any greater purpose than to satisfy the boy racers and the OIKOS transport vehicles should be put on hold.

The final Phase, providing a link to the Sandy Bay site plus residents and commuters living to the south west of Canvey Island, is unlikely to come to fruition in the near future.

With the Park Homes being placed on Sandy Bay costing in the region of £260,000 – £300,000 potential buyers might be put off by the absent final phase, of the Roscommon Way link to the development site passing close by the scene below.

Looking at it Canvey Village, Long Road and the approach via Thorney Bay Road would hold far greater appeal to potential buyers as they approach Sandy Bay, even if they are stuck in the regular traffic congestion!

OIKOS Roscommon Way

Entrapment for Canvey? Castle Point Local Plan 2016 consultation health warning!

Amidst threats, encouragement and plain suspicion residents ponder responding to the Castle Point Local Plan 2016 Consultation.

The 8 page full colour brochure sent to residents as part of the information pack is in itself “interesting.”

Councillors voted to sign-off the latest version  of the Local Plan under the “veiled” threat from the council chief executive that;

“Any attempt to remove sites that is not supported by evidence will result in the Council’s approach to meeting its housing needs being found unsustainable.
This in turn could put the entire plan at significant risk with the Council being faced with the prospect of either a finding of unsoundness or having to withdraw yet another development plan document after examination.”

” Failure to produce a statutory development plan places the Council at risk of intervention by the Secretary of State. Where the Secretary of State thinks that a local planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, he or she could intervene and produce a statutory development plan for the authority.”

The literature sent to residents contains clear indication of the rift between councillors and officers.

Officers have a duty to assist and guide councillors towards a Local Plan that reflects the achievable aspirations of residents. Of course they must have regard of National policy, housing need and constraints.

Councillors believed the constraints did not receive true weight, officers have a duty to use evidence to apply policy AND physical constraining factors into the Plan and evidence base.

The ambiguities in the Residents Consultation brochure, if nothing else, indicate a lack of commitment to the cause.

For instance;

Retention and protection of 2,734ha of Green Belt. The maps indicate just 2,687ha.

Housing, 2,000 new homes. The maps identify just 1,720 new homes!

Transport, proposals that improve the east-west connections on Canvey Island. Is this reference to the cycle path alongside Somnes Avenue?

If not then added to the aspired-to provision of a new road between Northwick Road and Corringham, the completion of the Roscommon Way, and the widening of Somnes Avenue, we are entering the realms of Fantasy Island!

Canvey Islanders and those residents bordering Jotmans Farm need also beware entrapment as they respond to the Local Plan 2016 consultation!

The “proposal” to dual the northern section of Canvey Way!

The scheming, because that is what it appears, to include this “carrot” was to be supported by the potential delivery of 800 new dwellings at Jotmans Farm.

A glance at the mainland map reveals no such Housing Development proposal! The proposal for a 265 dwelling development at Jotmans is currently awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State. There is no such, part-dualling of Canvey Way included as a condition in this current proposal, AND the housing proposal does not form part of the Local Plan 2016.

The delivery of infrastructure comes at a price. Jotmans residents may be tempted, indeed this brochure actually encourages them, to respond through the consultation, to agree the idea of the part-dualling of Canvey Way. Why else would the dualling be included as part of the Local Plan brochure’s aspirations for the mainland, rather than for Canvey?

We would suggest you would be signing Jotmans Farm’s “death warrant” as Green Field land!

Likewise Canvey residents responding demanding the illusive 3rd Road, a £ multi million investment.

Are we honestly expected to believe that a 3rd Road, plus Roscommon Way, plus Somnes Avenue AND Canvey Way widening will all be delivered within the 15 year lifetime of this Local Plan?

Perhaps Canvey Island’s (Para 4.7) “wider issues associated with the education and skills of residents” will prevent consultation responders from seeing the direction that aspirational responses may potentially allow officers to view the opinions of residents!

Respond to the consultation by stating no development unless better access to the Island, and you can be sure that large scale housing development is what you are supporting. Highway improvements are outside of Castle Point Council’s control!

14874722-Mousetrap-with-free-cheese-sign-entrapment-concept-Stock-Photo

The Canvey Green Belt Campaign encourages all Castle Point residents to respond to the Local Plan 2016 consultation, just be aware as to how a Planning Inspector may interpret your responses!

Following week 1 of the consultation, 7 persons have responded.

To view the full consultation evidence, responses and Local Plan2016 click on this link HERE.

Pic copyright: http://www.123rf.com

Canvey the Cinderella to Castle Point planners’ Ugly Sisters!

thDV2OZU1V

Councillor Sharp kindly contributed to one of our previous Blog post’s regarding the somewhat controversial business development at Roscommon Way, Canvey Island. Link to Post HERE.

He felt that “The principle (of development) was something that could not be refused.”

Interestingly the principle of development in the district and local interpretation was queried earlier in the development process.

As early as June 2015 the Environment Agency commented that;

“If no Land Raising  were proposed on site, the proposed compensatory storage would not be required, and the development on the site could be sequentially considered and located outside of the fluvial flood plain.”

Aside; Note to CPBC Planners the use of the term “Flood Plain”! 

Despite this suggestion of principle by the Environment Agency only the developer’s and Castle Point Council’s apparent determination to continue with the venture on this preferred site led to the Environment Agency offering the “golden nugget” of lifting their objection subject to condition!

This despite the intention of Land Raising on the site by some 60 centimetres!

Furthermore,  and like lambs to the slaughter the CPBC Development Control Committee pushed through the planning permission for the two large scale employment sites on Canvey Island on the recommendation of Planning Officers, without realising the consequences to the Boroughs Green Belt. The NLPs supporting evidence identifies that the argument that the boroughs land availability assessment without Green Belt allocation will support the objectively assessed housing needs of 200 per annum, is in direct conflict with its employment needs strategy.

Developers knowing that the Councils own evidenced base documents provide the basis for greater numbers of housing units to support the provision of employment opportunities will gratefully argue the case.

Extracts From

Employment & Retail Needs Assessment

Castle Point Borough Council

August 2012

FINAL REPORT

“It is also important to note that most of the demographic/housing led demand estimates result in a negative requirement for employment space in future compared with the current position. This largely reflects an ageing population, which, for the modest increase in housing proposed, produces a lower number of working age residents and hence a lower demand for future jobs and employment space. It is understood that Castle Point Council may be inclined towards a scenario based on 200 dwellings being built per annum. If this were the case, it would imply less employment space being needed in future and fewer local workers to support economic growth in the borough

The Borough’s two allocated sites South of Northwick Road and Roscommon Way appear reasonably suited to meet future needs although their proximity to the Thames estuary, relative remoteness and potential drainage issues may deter development.

Over 90% of the borough’s allocated employment land is in Canvey Island with limited supply elsewhere to meet future demand.

A specific issue considered was how the borough could achieve economic growth even if the Council plans for a modest rate of housing growth (e.g. 200 dwellings p.a.). This approach would result in a future decline in local labour supply and may constrain growth of local firms. It should still be possible to attract some firms and facilitate growth of others locally by providing good quality, accessible employment sites close to areas of demand within the Borough and taking steps to encourage development on these. However, success may be more difficult to achieve if there are constraints on labour supply and it is likely to result in higher levels of in-commuting to fill any new jobs created.”

The question is if we can see the bigger picture why the Planning Committee can’t is questionable,

OR CAN THEY?

Recent proposed Planning changes made easier the ability to allocate approved business development sites over to Housing. Access to Canvey continues to be an issue for business investors, despite the development committee vice chairman’s assurances that he has little problem in getting to his workplace, distributors find more easily accessible areas to invest outside of the Borough!

If a lack of investment, or requirement saw the Roscommon Way site difficult to attract businesses to, the possibility of a Flatted Housing Development would be a distinct possibility! A case of killing two birds with one stone, getting past the Sequential Test and off-setting growth towards the southern part of the Borough, or Canvey Island for the sake of our less sensitive souls.

It will be argued that the site(s) mentioned were set aside for development purpose within the 1998 Local Plan. What is however most relevant is that the 1998 Plan was produced prior to the detrimental information revealed within the 2010 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the surface water flooding events during 2013 and 2014.

Whether it is the responsibility of the CPBC development committee to research the more important contributions on the CPBC Planning Portal, or simply rely on the advice and interpretation of the “professional” officers is a matter of conjecture.

What is apparent is that advice and direction by CPBC’s own consultants is not being acted upon, the resultant effect being development directed towards Canvey Island despite constraints.

What implication to the mainland and Borough might this hold during the examination of a Local Plan?

Local jobs for local people promise for Canvey folk!

There were we thinking this Blog was being referenced during the Planning Committee meeting, when all along the Castle Point officer was probably referring to the councillor reported in the Echo as saying that the Roscommon Way business development was Green Belt.

One of our recent posts on the subject had made the point of stating similar, but had made the important point of using lower case g’s and s’ !

Whilst the area under consideration is green and has environmental value and neighbours the SSSI area, it is not Green Belt. This should be of some concern to Castle Point residents as it indicates the fragility of the defensive mechanism of Green Belt status.

This status has already been challenged legally in Castle Point as the local authority chose not to save its Green Belt policy, relying on the Local Plan options map to protect the areas status, when re-saving parts of the 1998 Local Plan.

During the development committee meeting we were also treated to other less than correct, precise ramblings of members such as;

On the expected extra traffic congestion the Business Park will cause:

The councillor who has a trouble free commute to his work premises travelling down the hill onto Canvey, claiming right of way over the 4 lanes queuing to get out of Somnes Avenue, and then claiming similar rights of way over those commuters returning home along Canvey Way attempting to enter Waterside Roundabout saying, the development will not add to traffic problems!

Then again the same councillor stated these potential 500 jobs will be local jobs for local people.

Local houses for local people argument doesn’t appear to hold up in practise, but the same old rhetoric continues to be used.

Another councillor who told members that he moved to Canvey when he married and always commuted off the Island for work, as did his children, but now he expects his grandchildren to have the right to expect to work on Canvey.

We must now wonder whether residents in the mainland ward he represents will be interested where his priorities lie, when issues of local housing and local green space for local people are up for consideration.

The route of the two major accident hazard pipelines however, must remain a mystery. The committee, those that showed the slightest interest, were told the maps showing their positions were available, but apparently not for this committee’s viewing.

It was pointed out by the “professional” officers that the Roscommon Way business application sought permission in “principle.”

By approving this proposal we assume that as it approved permission to “Land Raise” the site by 600 mm, the principle of Land Raising was also established on Canvey Island “In Principle.” 

A case of the Development Committee creating Local Plan policies?

On the concerns of drainage at the approved site, there appeared a pre-meeting session between some members, officer and developers had effectively concluded that the proposed drainage model would not add to drainage problems faced by the Island.

Permeable surfaces would be used. The CPBC SFRA states that;

“Permeable paving prevents runoff during low intensity rainfall, however, during intense rainfall events some runoff may occur from these surfaces.”

Attenuation Urban Drainage techniques would be used to control the flow of water from the site into the drainage system. Little reference was made to this being in the form of a Pond.

On Canvey, with its high water table, the introduction of a pond may be of similar effect as lowering a bowl full of water into a bath of water, the overall water table will rise.

“Ponds and wetlands trap silt that may need to be removed periodically”, the recent report into the Canvey Island flooding of 2014 revealed that the lack of maintenance in the Canvey drainage system was a major factor in the level of flood damage caused.

The option of installing the more expensive option of a pumped system, similar to the one employed apparently successfully by Morrisons Supermarket, appears now to have been disregarded.

In conclusion I will reproduce an “opinion” from the CPBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment copy in our possession;

“The results from the increased scope Level 2 SFRA have confirmed that the southern part of Castle Point, namely Canvey Island and the Hadleigh Marshes area are at significant risk of tidal flooding.

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.

In addition, it has been identified that parts of Canvey Island are at actual risk of flooding due to the level of protection of the existing defences”

No regard to this Flood Risk was expressed, the decision and responsibility for this Risk is entirely the development committee members concern.

It is clear that if this development realises the levels of employment suggested there will be an extra 1,000+ vehicle movements per day. Business development is of a lower category of flood risk than dwelling houses, however the levels of traffic created, if ever there was to be an emergency incident, would exacerbate the problems in carrying out an evacuation.

In the meantime let us all look forward to the new prosperity and work opportunities for Canvey residents.

 

Local Meeting and Petition sparks Residents interest in all things Canvey!

One good thing has emerged from the Canvey Residents Petition launched following the public meeting between residents and Cllr Martin Tucker.

It appears an awakening of concern of what is currently being proposed and future proposals for our Island.

More local involvement and awareness of issues by residents can only be a good thing. However this must not simply serve as a Tick Box exercise to serve Castle Point Council. Involvement must be seen to result in concerns being addressed and taken seriously. For far too many decades Canvey residents have been treated to platitudes where our flood defences, drainage and hazardous industries are concerned.

Now there appears an opportunity of an awakening where residents are becoming interested in the real facts, issues and situations in the surrounding area.

Our local political parties and representatives have an obligation to make residents fully aware of local issues  and a duty to face them full-on rather than leaving supressed by local policy making.

20052015309

An investment opportunity

This letter to Castle Point Council Development Committee members is an example of this re-newed interest and an attempt to take action. We look forward to more of the same to follow on other important issues:

Dear Councillors,

I write to you as the councillors and members of the Development Control Committee whom will decide upon the outcome of the above planning application.

You will be aware that this site formed part of the Draft Local Plan which was not approved last Wednesday, you will also be aware that some 3000 plus Canvey people have signed a petition registering their opposition to the plan and thus by default this application, the number of signatories grows day by day.

I am told that CPBC followed government guidelines in publicising this application this meant however that the letters sent out went mainly to business’s on Charfleets Industrial Estate and not to residences, yes notices were also placed in the local press and locally to the proposed development on lamp posts but these methods are unlikely to reach many people and as a result only 3 comments were received during the consultation period. I would suggest to you that as an application that will have far reaching effects on Canvey Island and the borough as a whole that discretion should have been used, as allowed under government guidelines, to directly inform a much wider audience which I am sure would have resulted in many more comments.

I therefore register to you as a constituent of Castle Point my opposition to this application on the following grounds and request that you make my views known at the meeting on 2.2.2016.

  • The land is on a class 3 flood plain which according to government guidelines should not be considered for development • The land is designated as green belt which according to government guidelines should be protected, planning practice guidelines say that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt • Recent reports have identified that the drainage system on Canvey Island is not fit for purpose and requires an investment of £24.5 million to make it so, further development will only exasperate the current situation • This development will increase demands upon the already inadequate infrastructure of Castle Point, and in particular the road network where this application is concerned.
  • The site falls within the 1km Cordon Sanitaire in relation to the Oikos COMAH site and so should be refused

I ask that you represent the views of the constituents of Castle Point and refuse this application.

Yours, N.S.