Plans submitted for 50 homes on former green belt site on A13

RENEWED plans have been submitted to tear down “dilapidated” buildings and build over 50 homes on a former green belt site on the A13.

Westcliff-based Argent Developers want to build 42 flats, eight houses and a bungalow on land off Bread and Cheese Hill, in London Road, Benfleet.

The two-and-a-half acre site is currently home to a redundant office building, a disused petrol station operating as a car wash, and a car tyre repair workshop.

The proposals would involve tearing down the buildings to redesign the area and build the new estate.

In a report, S K Architects, who submitted the proposals on behalf of Agent, said: “Due to the need to deliver housing growth and the decline in the commercial market much of the urban strip running alongside the A13 has seen renewal and redevelopment of previously developed land to provide housing.

“The proposed development seeks to demolish the existing single residential dwelling, associated ancillary structures and dilapidated and unsightly commercial units running up Bread and Cheese Hill.”

The application is a revised version of former plans submitted by the developer to build 54 homes on the land.

Castle Point Council rejected the proposals because the land had formerly been designated as part of the borough’s Green Belt.

S K Architects added: “Since the previous application being refused the number of buildings has been reduced. We believe the proposal dramatically improves upon the previous proposals and the existing unattractive site along the key artery running through Benfleet.”

A final decision on the plans will be decided by the council’s development control committees in the next few weeks.

Comments (75)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:48am Thu 14 Feb 13

pendulum says...

THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc pendulum
  • Score: 7

12:12pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Ian P says...

pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood. Ian P
  • Score: 6

12:19pm Thu 14 Feb 13

saddo99 says...

The "greenbelt" aspect is slightly misleading since it isn't green belt now and there are existing buildings already operating. I always thought that area heavily liable to subsidence which is why buildings are derelict there. (Some sort of Baptist Chapel I think).
The "greenbelt" aspect is slightly misleading since it isn't green belt now and there are existing buildings already operating. I always thought that area heavily liable to subsidence which is why buildings are derelict there. (Some sort of Baptist Chapel I think). saddo99
  • Score: 3

12:33pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

is that all they can squeeze on that space?
is that all they can squeeze on that space? Cosmo Spring
  • Score: 1

12:51pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Ian P says...

saddo99 wrote:
The "greenbelt" aspect is slightly misleading since it isn't green belt now and there are existing buildings already operating. I always thought that area heavily liable to subsidence which is why buildings are derelict there. (Some sort of Baptist Chapel I think).
The original wooden Chapel was allowed to become dilapidated, but that was only while they saved up enough money to replace it with a nice new building, a few years back. However, the Chapel is some way futher up the hill than the site under discussion.
[quote][p][bold]saddo99[/bold] wrote: The "greenbelt" aspect is slightly misleading since it isn't green belt now and there are existing buildings already operating. I always thought that area heavily liable to subsidence which is why buildings are derelict there. (Some sort of Baptist Chapel I think).[/p][/quote]The original wooden Chapel was allowed to become dilapidated, but that was only while they saved up enough money to replace it with a nice new building, a few years back. However, the Chapel is some way futher up the hill than the site under discussion. Ian P
  • Score: 2

4:30pm Thu 14 Feb 13

MilesBond says...

It IS an eyesore though, how it currently stands.
It IS an eyesore though, how it currently stands. MilesBond
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Thu 14 Feb 13

GentleGiant says...

The car showroom there was not allowed to expand a couple of years ago, despite it having lots of land to do so.

This was due to the green belt restrictions.
The car showroom there was not allowed to expand a couple of years ago, despite it having lots of land to do so. This was due to the green belt restrictions. GentleGiant
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Ian P wrote:
pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.
I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council. John T Pharro
  • Score: 2

5:23pm Thu 14 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Ian P wrote:
pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.
I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.
Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.[/p][/quote]Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow. upset
  • Score: -3

5:35pm Thu 14 Feb 13

whataday says...

Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead. whataday
  • Score: 5

5:42pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Ian P wrote:
pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.
I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.
Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.
Do so, and obviously you were not at the Neighbourhood Meeting last night you would have learnt even more about Castle Point Council regarding safety and development on Canvey, nor to see my proof of other matters you challenge. For someone who purports to be so interested and so critical of those that try to get things right and support Canvey including the elected Councillors you actually do naff all, but criticise their efforts. Try actually doing something instead of sniping from the side under a pseudonym.. As you have said before you are "well known" so who are you?
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.[/p][/quote]Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Do so, and obviously you were not at the Neighbourhood Meeting last night you would have learnt even more about Castle Point Council regarding safety and development on Canvey, nor to see my proof of other matters you challenge. For someone who purports to be so interested and so critical of those that try to get things right and support Canvey including the elected Councillors you actually do naff all, but criticise their efforts. Try actually doing something instead of sniping from the side under a pseudonym.. As you have said before you are "well known" so who are you? John T Pharro
  • Score: 2

5:57pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!!
[quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!! John T Pharro
  • Score: 4

6:11pm Thu 14 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Ian P wrote:
pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.
I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.
Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.
Do so, and obviously you were not at the Neighbourhood Meeting last night you would have learnt even more about Castle Point Council regarding safety and development on Canvey, nor to see my proof of other matters you challenge. For someone who purports to be so interested and so critical of those that try to get things right and support Canvey including the elected Councillors you actually do naff all, but criticise their efforts. Try actually doing something instead of sniping from the side under a pseudonym.. As you have said before you are "well known" so who are you?
You are having a go at me for critically pointing what effect the CIIP councillors have on CPBC as an infective opposition. They only complain like me why am I wrong and you support them.
You are full of info so you say, but still nothing about the voting question!!
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.[/p][/quote]Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Do so, and obviously you were not at the Neighbourhood Meeting last night you would have learnt even more about Castle Point Council regarding safety and development on Canvey, nor to see my proof of other matters you challenge. For someone who purports to be so interested and so critical of those that try to get things right and support Canvey including the elected Councillors you actually do naff all, but criticise their efforts. Try actually doing something instead of sniping from the side under a pseudonym.. As you have said before you are "well known" so who are you?[/p][/quote]You are having a go at me for critically pointing what effect the CIIP councillors have on CPBC as an infective opposition. They only complain like me why am I wrong and you support them. You are full of info so you say, but still nothing about the voting question!! upset
  • Score: -2

6:22pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Ian P wrote:
pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.
I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.
Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.
Do so, and obviously you were not at the Neighbourhood Meeting last night you would have learnt even more about Castle Point Council regarding safety and development on Canvey, nor to see my proof of other matters you challenge. For someone who purports to be so interested and so critical of those that try to get things right and support Canvey including the elected Councillors you actually do naff all, but criticise their efforts. Try actually doing something instead of sniping from the side under a pseudonym.. As you have said before you are "well known" so who are you?
You are having a go at me for critically pointing what effect the CIIP councillors have on CPBC as an infective opposition. They only complain like me why am I wrong and you support them.
You are full of info so you say, but still nothing about the voting question!!
You are clutching at straws by constantly referring to the voting question, which I have actually answered. You have answered nothing. The only reason why the CIIP are out voted is because they are in the minority compared with the Tory controlled mainland who constantly out vote them. Now is that simple enough for you to understand? As to the info, the ball is in your court, but as you never turn up to see the proof or what others have to say, well I think most people have worked out just what you are.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]I agree with your views totally. It should also not be overlooked that what may be a “dilapidated” building to a money grabbing developer is in fact someone else's livelihood.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree, but don't count on Castle Point Council being bothered about road safety. They allowed a crossover for a 4 flat development in Doverfeld Road Canvey near Nearbys to be put on the zig zag lines for pedestrian traffic lights. In order to put in the crossover the safety railings were removed. It would seem although illegal to park or stop and let people out on zig zag lines, obviously for safety reasons, it does not apply to vehicles crossing over the pavement. Well not according to Castle Point Council.[/p][/quote]Come on John, you well know the cross over was there when the old bungalow was there not sure about the railings being moved I will look tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Do so, and obviously you were not at the Neighbourhood Meeting last night you would have learnt even more about Castle Point Council regarding safety and development on Canvey, nor to see my proof of other matters you challenge. For someone who purports to be so interested and so critical of those that try to get things right and support Canvey including the elected Councillors you actually do naff all, but criticise their efforts. Try actually doing something instead of sniping from the side under a pseudonym.. As you have said before you are "well known" so who are you?[/p][/quote]You are having a go at me for critically pointing what effect the CIIP councillors have on CPBC as an infective opposition. They only complain like me why am I wrong and you support them. You are full of info so you say, but still nothing about the voting question!![/p][/quote]You are clutching at straws by constantly referring to the voting question, which I have actually answered. You have answered nothing. The only reason why the CIIP are out voted is because they are in the minority compared with the Tory controlled mainland who constantly out vote them. Now is that simple enough for you to understand? As to the info, the ball is in your court, but as you never turn up to see the proof or what others have to say, well I think most people have worked out just what you are. John T Pharro
  • Score: 4

6:45pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
[quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not? John T Pharro
  • Score: 3

6:55pm Thu 14 Feb 13

upset says...

Flats approved by Town council, only one Tory on council and he was not at the meeting of 12th November 2012. They kept this quite.
Flats approved by Town council, only one Tory on council and he was not at the meeting of 12th November 2012. They kept this quite. upset
  • Score: 1

7:02pm Thu 14 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party. upset
  • Score: -3

7:50pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.[/p][/quote]Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown. John T Pharro
  • Score: 3

8:37pm Thu 14 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
Flats approved by Town council, only one Tory on council and he was not at the meeting of 12th November 2012. They kept this quite.
Eh! On what development?
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: Flats approved by Town council, only one Tory on council and he was not at the meeting of 12th November 2012. They kept this quite.[/p][/quote]Eh! On what development? John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

11:32pm Thu 14 Feb 13

HOT AIR says...

John, find out which Indie Councillor has put planning in to build on the greenbelt at Sadlers Farm. Makes your argument look a little shaky.
John, find out which Indie Councillor has put planning in to build on the greenbelt at Sadlers Farm. Makes your argument look a little shaky. HOT AIR
  • Score: 0

3:41am Fri 15 Feb 13

Louisajo says...

Overcrowded, overpopulated and an untidy, ugly mess. That's Castle Point for you! Thanks council and planning for your lack of care and continual disregard for what your constituents want and need.
Leave the green belt alone and stop cramming the cheapest and ugliest buildings into this area.
Other councils really care and bother about what is being built and the aesthetics of an area. Why don't you!!!
Overcrowded, overpopulated and an untidy, ugly mess. That's Castle Point for you! Thanks council and planning for your lack of care and continual disregard for what your constituents want and need. Leave the green belt alone and stop cramming the cheapest and ugliest buildings into this area. Other councils really care and bother about what is being built and the aesthetics of an area. Why don't you!!! Louisajo
  • Score: 2

8:55am Fri 15 Feb 13

southchurchroad says...

More flats and houses! we aren't of course concerned with making sure services and amenities are provided, or the local impact, or the fact that it's green belt. It's more flats and houses! How would we have room for even more flats and houses if we thought about that? Why, the flats and houses are insulted at the mere thought of the whole area being overcrowded and underfunded with massively corrupt councils. Flats and houses!
More flats and houses! we aren't of course concerned with making sure services and amenities are provided, or the local impact, or the fact that it's green belt. It's more flats and houses! How would we have room for even more flats and houses if we thought about that? Why, the flats and houses are insulted at the mere thought of the whole area being overcrowded and underfunded with massively corrupt councils. Flats and houses! southchurchroad
  • Score: 2

9:05am Fri 15 Feb 13

marievazques says...

pendulum wrote:
THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc
Makes sense. Marie - http://www.buyaplan.
co.uk
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: THAT is going to be dangerous, a busy entrance/exit on Bread and Cheese Hill itself, bad enough with people emerging from the car wash/car sales areas/Wheelers Tandoori etc[/p][/quote]Makes sense. Marie - http://www.buyaplan. co.uk marievazques
  • Score: 0

10:02am Fri 15 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.
John has it occurred to you why you are the only one on here who uses there real name, why just choose me to have a go about it.
Do you get some sort buzz seeing your name on here?
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.[/p][/quote]Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.[/p][/quote]John has it occurred to you why you are the only one on here who uses there real name, why just choose me to have a go about it. Do you get some sort buzz seeing your name on here? upset
  • Score: -1

10:04am Fri 15 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
Flats approved by Town council, only one Tory on council and he was not at the meeting of 12th November 2012. They kept this quite.
Eh! On what development?
Look at the Town council website planning minutes, they make interesting reading.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: Flats approved by Town council, only one Tory on council and he was not at the meeting of 12th November 2012. They kept this quite.[/p][/quote]Eh! On what development?[/p][/quote]Look at the Town council website planning minutes, they make interesting reading. upset
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

southchurchroad wrote:
More flats and houses! we aren't of course concerned with making sure services and amenities are provided, or the local impact, or the fact that it's green belt. It's more flats and houses! How would we have room for even more flats and houses if we thought about that? Why, the flats and houses are insulted at the mere thought of the whole area being overcrowded and underfunded with massively corrupt councils. Flats and houses!
You are spot on and yes the residents, the few that took the time to atend, and Councillors who actually outnumbered the residents did raise concerns about the infra structure at the meeting. The plans for the development at Canvey Supply and Thorney Bay have all been passed without any approved infrastructure. It will be addressed was the answer and despite protest that the infrastructure should be in place prior to developoment because it cannot cope now never received an answer.
It would help if some people so critical attended these meetings instead oif leaving it to others and then sniping away at those that do wouldn't it? They are only two quick to critise, but never actually doi anything else.
[quote][p][bold]southchurchroad[/bold] wrote: More flats and houses! we aren't of course concerned with making sure services and amenities are provided, or the local impact, or the fact that it's green belt. It's more flats and houses! How would we have room for even more flats and houses if we thought about that? Why, the flats and houses are insulted at the mere thought of the whole area being overcrowded and underfunded with massively corrupt councils. Flats and houses![/p][/quote]You are spot on and yes the residents, the few that took the time to atend, and Councillors who actually outnumbered the residents did raise concerns about the infra structure at the meeting. The plans for the development at Canvey Supply and Thorney Bay have all been passed without any approved infrastructure. It will be addressed was the answer and despite protest that the infrastructure should be in place prior to developoment because it cannot cope now never received an answer. It would help if some people so critical attended these meetings instead oif leaving it to others and then sniping away at those that do wouldn't it? They are only two quick to critise, but never actually doi anything else. John T Pharro
  • Score: 4

10:19am Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.
John has it occurred to you why you are the only one on here who uses there real name, why just choose me to have a go about it.
Do you get some sort buzz seeing your name on here?
Not true, although I disagree mostly with Colin MaClean he does and I respect him fort that.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.[/p][/quote]Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.[/p][/quote]John has it occurred to you why you are the only one on here who uses there real name, why just choose me to have a go about it. Do you get some sort buzz seeing your name on here?[/p][/quote]Not true, although I disagree mostly with Colin MaClean he does and I respect him fort that. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

12:15pm Fri 15 Feb 13

upset says...

I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags.
Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?
I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags. Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it? upset
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags.
Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?
Apology accepted, of course the railings will stay removed it is the crossover access to the flats.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags. Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?[/p][/quote]Apology accepted, of course the railings will stay removed it is the crossover access to the flats. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Fri 15 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags.
Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?
Apology accepted, of course the railings will stay removed it is the crossover access to the flats.
Thought you might be interest in this John about 30 Dovervelt.flats
http://wam.castlepoi
nt.gov.uk/WAM133/doc
/General%20Comment-2
53686.pdf?extension=
.pdf&id=253686&locat
ion=VOLUME2&contentT
ype=application/pdf&
pageCount=4
It's a report from ECC Highways stating that the North part of the railings had to be moved and a new angled drive with drop down must be installed before any residents move in.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags. Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?[/p][/quote]Apology accepted, of course the railings will stay removed it is the crossover access to the flats.[/p][/quote]Thought you might be interest in this John about 30 Dovervelt.flats http://wam.castlepoi nt.gov.uk/WAM133/doc /General%20Comment-2 53686.pdf?extension= .pdf&id=253686&locat ion=VOLUME2&contentT ype=application/pdf& pageCount=4 It's a report from ECC Highways stating that the North part of the railings had to be moved and a new angled drive with drop down must be installed before any residents move in. upset
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!!
John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ?


previous quote
Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable..

Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ?
A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.

Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point?
A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there?

Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ?
A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!![/p][/quote]John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ? previous quote Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable.. Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ? A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk. Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point? A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there? Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ? A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.
Get out of his chair and DO WHAT ?

CIIP Cllrs are playing a Political game, voting in a way they can not loose any votes, because the hard dessions are being made by someone else.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.[/p][/quote]Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.[/p][/quote]Get out of his chair and DO WHAT ? CIIP Cllrs are playing a Political game, voting in a way they can not loose any votes, because the hard dessions are being made by someone else. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!!
John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ?


previous quote
Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable..

Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ?
A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.

Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point?
A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there?

Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ?
A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.
Actually with the record Castle Point last development plan on trying to build all the major development on Canvey and kicked out by the Government Inspector perhaps we would be better off without a skewed plan favouring the mainland on Canvey. Having the Government step in and implement the Boroughs requirements we might get listened to.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!![/p][/quote]John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ? previous quote Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable.. Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ? A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk. Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point? A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there? Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ? A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.[/p][/quote]Actually with the record Castle Point last development plan on trying to build all the major development on Canvey and kicked out by the Government Inspector perhaps we would be better off without a skewed plan favouring the mainland on Canvey. Having the Government step in and implement the Boroughs requirements we might get listened to. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

6:32pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.
Get out of his chair and DO WHAT ?

CIIP Cllrs are playing a Political game, voting in a way they can not loose any votes, because the hard dessions are being made by someone else.
Are they and of course the Tories are not doing the same? The CIIP have had no complaints from the residents of Canvey who voted for them on home building developments as far as I know. Bet there are a lot of mainland voters wishing they had voted differently.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.[/p][/quote]Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.[/p][/quote]Get out of his chair and DO WHAT ? CIIP Cllrs are playing a Political game, voting in a way they can not loose any votes, because the hard dessions are being made by someone else.[/p][/quote]Are they and of course the Tories are not doing the same? The CIIP have had no complaints from the residents of Canvey who voted for them on home building developments as far as I know. Bet there are a lot of mainland voters wishing they had voted differently. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

7:16pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags.
Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?
Apology accepted, of course the railings will stay removed it is the crossover access to the flats.
Thought you might be interest in this John about 30 Dovervelt.flats
http://wam.castlepoi

nt.gov.uk/WAM133/doc

/General%20Comment-2

53686.pdf?extension=

.pdf&id=253686&a
mp;locat
ion=VOLUME2&cont
entT
ype=application/pdf&
amp;
pageCount=4
It's a report from ECC Highways stating that the North part of the railings had to be moved and a new angled drive with drop down must be installed before any residents move in.
So as I said the railings will no longer be there will they. Do you really think this is safe to have cars crossing over just feet away from a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing. Whoever approved it it is wrong. What now you can do is walk out between safety railings and then find a full length railing on the opposite side. An accident just waiting to happen.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: I owe you an apology John they have removed two if not three lengths of the railings protecting the zig zags. Cant believe this correct, I wonder if the builder has just removed it?[/p][/quote]Apology accepted, of course the railings will stay removed it is the crossover access to the flats.[/p][/quote]Thought you might be interest in this John about 30 Dovervelt.flats http://wam.castlepoi nt.gov.uk/WAM133/doc /General%20Comment-2 53686.pdf?extension= .pdf&id=253686&a mp;locat ion=VOLUME2&cont entT ype=application/pdf& amp; pageCount=4 It's a report from ECC Highways stating that the North part of the railings had to be moved and a new angled drive with drop down must be installed before any residents move in.[/p][/quote]So as I said the railings will no longer be there will they. Do you really think this is safe to have cars crossing over just feet away from a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing. Whoever approved it it is wrong. What now you can do is walk out between safety railings and then find a full length railing on the opposite side. An accident just waiting to happen. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

7:19pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?
The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.
Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.
Get out of his chair and DO WHAT ?

CIIP Cllrs are playing a Political game, voting in a way they can not loose any votes, because the hard dessions are being made by someone else.
Are they and of course the Tories are not doing the same? The CIIP have had no complaints from the residents of Canvey who voted for them on home building developments as far as I know. Bet there are a lot of mainland voters wishing they had voted differently.
Have you missed my previous comment on why the homes are required and NO is not an option acceptable to an inspector becareful what you wish for .
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]As much as possible and please think where you vote next time. If you read the post the CIIP have consistently voted against greenbelt development as they would.. It is ALWAYS the Tories that vote these things through. Now "upset" and others so critical of that being highlighted is that a fact or not?[/p][/quote]The only reason they are the minority party is because Torys get more votes, brings me back to my previous point "A vote for CIIP is a wasted vote unless they also get elected on the mainland or have an alliance with.another party.[/p][/quote]Only on the mainland have the Tories a majority vote I said that. It is up to the mainland to form it's own independent party, not the CANVEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT PARTY. Cannot you see the obvious in the name? Stop making pointless futile comments and start answering questions. Just tell what have you actually done, said or attended any meetings to air your criticism or put forward a constructive argument. You demand to know what I know so turn up,and hear first hand then challenge me. You don't do you. As IKNOWBETTER says you are an armchair warrior get out of your armchair and do something instead of sniping on the side or supporting the views on me like"Hotair" and then deny you do. Go on try actually having the courage to stand up and publicly put forward your views. Unless you do you are just hot air sniping on he side. "We'll known" you called yourself, actually unknown.[/p][/quote]Get out of his chair and DO WHAT ? CIIP Cllrs are playing a Political game, voting in a way they can not loose any votes, because the hard dessions are being made by someone else.[/p][/quote]Are they and of course the Tories are not doing the same? The CIIP have had no complaints from the residents of Canvey who voted for them on home building developments as far as I know. Bet there are a lot of mainland voters wishing they had voted differently.[/p][/quote]Have you missed my previous comment on why the homes are required and NO is not an option acceptable to an inspector becareful what you wish for . Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!!
John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ?


previous quote
Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable..

Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ?
A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.

Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point?
A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there?

Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ?
A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.
Actually with the record Castle Point last development plan on trying to build all the major development on Canvey and kicked out by the Government Inspector perhaps we would be better off without a skewed plan favouring the mainland on Canvey. Having the Government step in and implement the Boroughs requirements we might get listened to.
Not ALL the previous homes where on Canvey as the total number was still over 3000 and that was not all on Canvey less than half if I recall.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!![/p][/quote]John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ? previous quote Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable.. Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ? A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk. Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point? A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there? Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ? A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.[/p][/quote]Actually with the record Castle Point last development plan on trying to build all the major development on Canvey and kicked out by the Government Inspector perhaps we would be better off without a skewed plan favouring the mainland on Canvey. Having the Government step in and implement the Boroughs requirements we might get listened to.[/p][/quote]Not ALL the previous homes where on Canvey as the total number was still over 3000 and that was not all on Canvey less than half if I recall. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
whataday wrote:
Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE
How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on?
No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already.
Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.
I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!!
John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ?


previous quote
Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable..

Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ?
A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.

Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point?
A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there?

Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ?
A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.
Actually with the record Castle Point last development plan on trying to build all the major development on Canvey and kicked out by the Government Inspector perhaps we would be better off without a skewed plan favouring the mainland on Canvey. Having the Government step in and implement the Boroughs requirements we might get listened to.
Not ALL the previous homes where on Canvey as the total number was still over 3000 and that was not all on Canvey less than half if I recall.
The original plan had the vast majority of homes to be built on Canvey that is why the Government Inspector would not accept it. The problem is even when the residents would accept sensible development like the 35 homes originally shown in the plan at Canvey Supply they objected to the number proposed. Result a new plan with less houses and more flats a total of 99 homes. A total exceeding the original proposal. How would you feel being kicked in the teeth like that?. Not no development just sensible in keeping with the area. Now it has 4 storey flats and there are no 4 storey flats anywhere in the Borough. When this was complained about at the meeting Mr Rogers said "it is only on the Smallgains Creek end". That's sympathetic and understanding NOT. Just explain this. Since the plan was rejected there have been 600 POSSIBLY MORE homes on Thorney Bay because the figure could still be more and 99 at Canvey Supply have been approved against less than 100 on the mainland. Would you if you live on Canvey think it is a back door policy to get as many passed on Canvey as possible? Oh and just for the record apparently the extension to Rosscommon Way may not be built as funding has not been approved. All the Council has done is ensure that land will be available for it to be built. You know more people should attend these meetings because far more is said, but now not minuted like before, then ever gets reported. If anyone at that meeting wishes to say I got things wrong just say so.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: Greedy developers again. ITS GREEN BELT LEAVE IT ALONE How much more Green Belt land in Castle Point do these developers want to build on? No more flats are needed along the A13 there are far too many already. Bread and Cheese Hill is seriously busy already without any more danger from residents pulling in and out there if these flats get the go ahead.[/p][/quote]I attended the presentation for the Castle Point development last night on Canvey. Mr Rogers who presented it no less than 10 times referred to "houses" being built, until challenged as to why the overdevelopment at Canvey Point that the majority were flats. He then spoke of "homes", read of that what you want. This was actually part of "consultancy for residents" including three three areas, 1 in Benfleet and the 2 major developments of Canvey Thorney Bay and Canvey Supply which all have been approved one way or the other. Do you call that consultancy? It is a numbers game as the more "homes" built the bigger government subsidy. Wake up mainland of Castle Point all these developments were passed by the majority Tory Councillors. If you want your real concerns addressed change your vote NOW!![/p][/quote]John I point you to my previous comment on another thread and I ask you to ask the CIIP Cllrs for their opinion on what we should do to meet the housing quotas forced on Castle Point ? previous quote Q / What's going on in Castle Point ? A / Castle Point as have other Boroughs have to set a new homes target that have to stand scrutiny of a Government Inspector, a figure could be as high as 280 per year but is suggested that 200 maybe defendable.. Q/ Why are mainland Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point ? A/ because failure to prepare a local plan or provide adequate housing numbers will result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, so what you may say , but developers who are waiting to develop our Green Belt sites would then submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk. Q/ Why aren't CIIP Cllrs voting for new homes in Castle Point? A/ Ask them , and ask what alternatives are there? Q / What could happen if the new local plan is not in place ? A/ Could result in Castle Point loosing it Development Control, with developers waiting to submit applications direct to an Inspector plans that have not been negotiated just submitted , ALL Green Belt will be at risk.[/p][/quote]Actually with the record Castle Point last development plan on trying to build all the major development on Canvey and kicked out by the Government Inspector perhaps we would be better off without a skewed plan favouring the mainland on Canvey. Having the Government step in and implement the Boroughs requirements we might get listened to.[/p][/quote]Not ALL the previous homes where on Canvey as the total number was still over 3000 and that was not all on Canvey less than half if I recall.[/p][/quote]The original plan had the vast majority of homes to be built on Canvey that is why the Government Inspector would not accept it. The problem is even when the residents would accept sensible development like the 35 homes originally shown in the plan at Canvey Supply they objected to the number proposed. Result a new plan with less houses and more flats a total of 99 homes. A total exceeding the original proposal. How would you feel being kicked in the teeth like that?. Not no development just sensible in keeping with the area. Now it has 4 storey flats and there are no 4 storey flats anywhere in the Borough. When this was complained about at the meeting Mr Rogers said "it is only on the Smallgains Creek end". That's sympathetic and understanding NOT. Just explain this. Since the plan was rejected there have been 600 POSSIBLY MORE homes on Thorney Bay because the figure could still be more and 99 at Canvey Supply have been approved against less than 100 on the mainland. Would you if you live on Canvey think it is a back door policy to get as many passed on Canvey as possible? Oh and just for the record apparently the extension to Rosscommon Way may not be built as funding has not been approved. All the Council has done is ensure that land will be available for it to be built. You know more people should attend these meetings because far more is said, but now not minuted like before, then ever gets reported. If anyone at that meeting wishes to say I got things wrong just say so. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John,
thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ?
Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.
John, thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ? Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John,
thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ?
Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.
John, thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ? Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John,
thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ?
Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.
Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: John, thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ? Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

8:58pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John,
thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ?
Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.
Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.
John
you need to look at the bigger picture, learn the facts and not just the current numbers, the Core Strategy was rejected and the number of houses on Canvey was just one reason the inspector gave .
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: John, thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ? Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.[/p][/quote]John you need to look at the bigger picture, learn the facts and not just the current numbers, the Core Strategy was rejected and the number of houses on Canvey was just one reason the inspector gave . Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John,
thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ?
Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.
Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.
John
you need to look at the bigger picture, learn the facts and not just the current numbers, the Core Strategy was rejected and the number of houses on Canvey was just one reason the inspector gave .
Oh and its not 800 passed on Canvey
re watch the webcasts and add them up again.
Number of actually passed homes on Canvey only 99 passed so far by my count.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: John, thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ? Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.[/p][/quote]John you need to look at the bigger picture, learn the facts and not just the current numbers, the Core Strategy was rejected and the number of houses on Canvey was just one reason the inspector gave .[/p][/quote]Oh and its not 800 passed on Canvey re watch the webcasts and add them up again. Number of actually passed homes on Canvey only 99 passed so far by my count. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Fri 15 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John,
thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ?
Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.
Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.
John
you need to look at the bigger picture, learn the facts and not just the current numbers, the Core Strategy was rejected and the number of houses on Canvey was just one reason the inspector gave .
Oh and its not 800 passed on Canvey
re watch the webcasts and add them up again.
Number of actually passed homes on Canvey only 99 passed so far by my count.
You have ignored Thorney Bay passed with outline permission with a 600 home tag on it.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: John, thats not over 1500 homes on Canvey which would be half is it ? Which was your comment , so I guess its not fact.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake can you not grasp it. The REJECTED proposal was because too many houses were to be built on Canvey. Of the 800 houses subsequently passed nearly 700 are on Canvey. Where the other "requirement homes" are to be built is still not been put forward. Can you not see the difference between passed and proposed. Bet you would be screaming unfair if it was the mainland that had the 700 homes passed and only 100 on Canvey.[/p][/quote]John you need to look at the bigger picture, learn the facts and not just the current numbers, the Core Strategy was rejected and the number of houses on Canvey was just one reason the inspector gave .[/p][/quote]Oh and its not 800 passed on Canvey re watch the webcasts and add them up again. Number of actually passed homes on Canvey only 99 passed so far by my count.[/p][/quote]You have ignored Thorney Bay passed with outline permission with a 600 home tag on it. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

out line planning only and NO Figures actually stated and no numbers passed from the meetings I watched.
did you ask Cllrs at Canvey residents meeting this week about where they think the houses should be built, 3000 + need to be identified FACT
out line planning only and NO Figures actually stated and no numbers passed from the meetings I watched. did you ask Cllrs at Canvey residents meeting this week about where they think the houses should be built, 3000 + need to be identified FACT Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Local yachtsman says...

More flats? There are loads of empty flats around here because no-one wants flats. Especially on GREEN BELT land!!!
More flats? There are loads of empty flats around here because no-one wants flats. Especially on GREEN BELT land!!! Local yachtsman
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

Local yachtsman wrote:
More flats? There are loads of empty flats around here because no-one wants flats. Especially on GREEN BELT land!!!
Well said
but the numbers are from this Government and the previous Government.
[quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: More flats? There are loads of empty flats around here because no-one wants flats. Especially on GREEN BELT land!!![/p][/quote]Well said but the numbers are from this Government and the previous Government. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
out line planning only and NO Figures actually stated and no numbers passed from the meetings I watched.
did you ask Cllrs at Canvey residents meeting this week about where they think the houses should be built, 3000 + need to be identified FACT
No Mr Rogers told us the 10 areas identified for consultation for development. Of which as I keep,telling you there have already had permission granted one way or the other. Canvey Suppply, Thorney Bayband the greenbelt approval on the mainland. So much for "consultation" if some already passed. Every question asked we were given frankly vague answers. If you are so interested if you live on Canvey, why didn't you go to the meeting instead of keep trying to pick holes in what I say. If you have any to go to mainland go yourself and see.
You will notice one thing no resident or Councillor who were at the meeting has disagreed or questioned what I have said, just those not there like "upset" so full of crticism and concern, but never even bothered to turn up.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: out line planning only and NO Figures actually stated and no numbers passed from the meetings I watched. did you ask Cllrs at Canvey residents meeting this week about where they think the houses should be built, 3000 + need to be identified FACT[/p][/quote]No Mr Rogers told us the 10 areas identified for consultation for development. Of which as I keep,telling you there have already had permission granted one way or the other. Canvey Suppply, Thorney Bayband the greenbelt approval on the mainland. So much for "consultation" if some already passed. Every question asked we were given frankly vague answers. If you are so interested if you live on Canvey, why didn't you go to the meeting instead of keep trying to pick holes in what I say. If you have any to go to mainland go yourself and see. You will notice one thing no resident or Councillor who were at the meeting has disagreed or questioned what I have said, just those not there like "upset" so full of crticism and concern, but never even bothered to turn up. John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

4:54pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact.
Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed.
In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No.
The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed.

Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions.

As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.
Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact. Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed. In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No. The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed. Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions. As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact.
Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed.
In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No.
The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed.

Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions.

As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.
So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses?
As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact. Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed. In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No. The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed. Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions. As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.[/p][/quote]So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses? As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact.
Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed.
In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No.
The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed.

Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions.

As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.
So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses?
As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.
Thorney Bay has outline planning, yes no numbers no real plans other than where they can not build really. the details on numbers and layout will be in a full planning proposal that would have to go to the Development Committee. Please read carefully my previous comments especially the bits on what needs to happen and what could happen if we don not do the need to do bits.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact. Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed. In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No. The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed. Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions. As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.[/p][/quote]So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses? As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.[/p][/quote]Thorney Bay has outline planning, yes no numbers no real plans other than where they can not build really. the details on numbers and layout will be in a full planning proposal that would have to go to the Development Committee. Please read carefully my previous comments especially the bits on what needs to happen and what could happen if we don not do the need to do bits. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact.
Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed.
In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No.
The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed.

Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions.

As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.
So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses?
As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.
Thorney Bay has outline planning, yes no numbers no real plans other than where they can not build really. the details on numbers and layout will be in a full planning proposal that would have to go to the Development Committee. Please read carefully my previous comments especially the bits on what needs to happen and what could happen if we don not do the need to do bits.
I have and frankly it the more you go on the more I think I am more inclined for the Government to step in because frankly I don't trust Castle Point Council regarding it's attitude towards Canvey and what have we got to loose? The one thing you cannot argue with is the 99 properties approved at Canvey Supply despite massive local objections from residents, not against development, but just the overdevelopment. Result the original proposal was INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND PASSED.
Do you seriously believe with that track record Thorney Bay won't have hundreds of properties approved when outline permission has already been approved?
Frankly I don't think Canvey residents have anything to loose having the Government make the decisions because judging by the current proposal put forward by Castle Point already identify every piece of greenbelt on Canvey (other than Canvey West Marsh) for development and overdevelopment on the brownfield sites against residents objections.
Seems to me you are only bothered because it may mean more properties on the mainland if the Government steps in because you haven't shown a jot of sympathy for Canvey have you?
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact. Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed. In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No. The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed. Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions. As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.[/p][/quote]So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses? As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.[/p][/quote]Thorney Bay has outline planning, yes no numbers no real plans other than where they can not build really. the details on numbers and layout will be in a full planning proposal that would have to go to the Development Committee. Please read carefully my previous comments especially the bits on what needs to happen and what could happen if we don not do the need to do bits.[/p][/quote]I have and frankly it the more you go on the more I think I am more inclined for the Government to step in because frankly I don't trust Castle Point Council regarding it's attitude towards Canvey and what have we got to loose? The one thing you cannot argue with is the 99 properties approved at Canvey Supply despite massive local objections from residents, not against development, but just the overdevelopment. Result the original proposal was INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND PASSED. Do you seriously believe with that track record Thorney Bay won't have hundreds of properties approved when outline permission has already been approved? Frankly I don't think Canvey residents have anything to loose having the Government make the decisions because judging by the current proposal put forward by Castle Point already identify every piece of greenbelt on Canvey (other than Canvey West Marsh) for development and overdevelopment on the brownfield sites against residents objections. Seems to me you are only bothered because it may mean more properties on the mainland if the Government steps in because you haven't shown a jot of sympathy for Canvey have you? John T Pharro
  • Score: 1

6:02pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John how wrong you are, please dismount your Canvey High Horse
Even if you are joking the loss of Development control would destroy Castle Point mainland or island be careful what you wish for .
John how wrong you are, please dismount your Canvey High Horse Even if you are joking the loss of Development control would destroy Castle Point mainland or island be careful what you wish for . Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Sat 16 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact.
Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed.
In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No.
The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed.

Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions.

As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.
So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses?
As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.
Thorney Bay has outline planning, yes no numbers no real plans other than where they can not build really. the details on numbers and layout will be in a full planning proposal that would have to go to the Development Committee. Please read carefully my previous comments especially the bits on what needs to happen and what could happen if we don not do the need to do bits.
I have and frankly it the more you go on the more I think I am more inclined for the Government to step in because frankly I don't trust Castle Point Council regarding it's attitude towards Canvey and what have we got to loose? The one thing you cannot argue with is the 99 properties approved at Canvey Supply despite massive local objections from residents, not against development, but just the overdevelopment. Result the original proposal was INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND PASSED.
Do you seriously believe with that track record Thorney Bay won't have hundreds of properties approved when outline permission has already been approved?
Frankly I don't think Canvey residents have anything to loose having the Government make the decisions because judging by the current proposal put forward by Castle Point already identify every piece of greenbelt on Canvey (other than Canvey West Marsh) for development and overdevelopment on the brownfield sites against residents objections.
Seems to me you are only bothered because it may mean more properties on the mainland if the Government steps in because you haven't shown a jot of sympathy for Canvey have you?
John it's one borough if we like it or not, continually fighting for Canvey Island is a lost cause, I dont like that and I'm sure you dont. But that's how it is, thats why CIIP need and alliance on the main land or a vote for them keeps the Tory's in power and I'm sure you dont want that!!!
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Actually if any developer comes forward it would have to go through Castle Points Development Control system, covered by the 1998 Local Plan , therefore Green Belt can be protected. The Government imposed or rather soon to be imposed housing target insist that Castle Point build the requested number of homes per year for atleast 15 years or feel the raft of the inspector who will receive direct applications of development from developers this is Fact. Just to make it clear all Green Belt will be vulnerable Canvey or Mainland especially those with developers already in the wings ie Dutch Village, Jotmans, Glebelands, Rayleigh Road and any others I missed. In regards to consultation that is to come and as I said above will include the sites you mentioned as they have come up they have to be decided with a Yes or No. The consultation will happen, the first 5 years of the expected housing target has been identified and am sorry it does not fit the CIIP argument but less than 50 % are on Canvey, but there is an election soon so I expect no less from both sides. The consultation will and has to happen especially when the sites for the next 2000+ homes are discussed. Can I suggest you watch the online Council meetings and ask your cllrs direct questions. As to vagueness of Steve Rogers answers I suspect as I was not there but my opinion is that there are not firm answers to your questions so vague has to be the answer as he is an officer and not the decision maker.[/p][/quote]So you are saying Thorney Bay does not have outline permission for hundreds of houses? As you say you were not at the meeting so you don't know what was said and no minutes taken either. See posts on that subject.[/p][/quote]Thorney Bay has outline planning, yes no numbers no real plans other than where they can not build really. the details on numbers and layout will be in a full planning proposal that would have to go to the Development Committee. Please read carefully my previous comments especially the bits on what needs to happen and what could happen if we don not do the need to do bits.[/p][/quote]I have and frankly it the more you go on the more I think I am more inclined for the Government to step in because frankly I don't trust Castle Point Council regarding it's attitude towards Canvey and what have we got to loose? The one thing you cannot argue with is the 99 properties approved at Canvey Supply despite massive local objections from residents, not against development, but just the overdevelopment. Result the original proposal was INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND PASSED. Do you seriously believe with that track record Thorney Bay won't have hundreds of properties approved when outline permission has already been approved? Frankly I don't think Canvey residents have anything to loose having the Government make the decisions because judging by the current proposal put forward by Castle Point already identify every piece of greenbelt on Canvey (other than Canvey West Marsh) for development and overdevelopment on the brownfield sites against residents objections. Seems to me you are only bothered because it may mean more properties on the mainland if the Government steps in because you haven't shown a jot of sympathy for Canvey have you?[/p][/quote]John it's one borough if we like it or not, continually fighting for Canvey Island is a lost cause, I dont like that and I'm sure you dont. But that's how it is, thats why CIIP need and alliance on the main land or a vote for them keeps the Tory's in power and I'm sure you dont want that!!! upset
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

Upset
I would make no difference who had the majority the housing targets would still be the same.
Upset I would make no difference who had the majority the housing targets would still be the same. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John how wrong you are, please dismount your Canvey High Horse
Even if you are joking the loss of Development control would destroy Castle Point mainland or island be careful what you wish for .
Am I joking. Well actually I believed all the hype about what we, as in Castle Point would loose, if the Government stepped in, but the way the way many of residents feel on Canvey about the way the mainland Councillors vote I really do think we have nothing to loose. You explain to me how the mainland Councillors approved the overdevelopment at Canvey Supply against the residents objections. So just where on Canvey is not identified for development, probably overdevelopment.
"Upset" we may be one Borough, but the way the Benfleet vote they treat Canvey as their dumping ground for building (as the rejected original Borough plan showed) and I see nothing since to suggest otherwise as the Thorney Bay approval and Canvey Supply show. It is actually the Benfleet Councillors that treat the mainland differently from Canvey as their voting record shows. I wish you had heard the lady at the meeting eloquently express her feelings on our forced inclusion with the mainland, but then of course you were not at the meeting to hear it. Of course that won't be minuted either.
As I said before "Whatthe" where is your support or do you think we are being treated fairly? Just say which.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: John how wrong you are, please dismount your Canvey High Horse Even if you are joking the loss of Development control would destroy Castle Point mainland or island be careful what you wish for .[/p][/quote]Am I joking. Well actually I believed all the hype about what we, as in Castle Point would loose, if the Government stepped in, but the way the way many of residents feel on Canvey about the way the mainland Councillors vote I really do think we have nothing to loose. You explain to me how the mainland Councillors approved the overdevelopment at Canvey Supply against the residents objections. So just where on Canvey is not identified for development, probably overdevelopment. "Upset" we may be one Borough, but the way the Benfleet vote they treat Canvey as their dumping ground for building (as the rejected original Borough plan showed) and I see nothing since to suggest otherwise as the Thorney Bay approval and Canvey Supply show. It is actually the Benfleet Councillors that treat the mainland differently from Canvey as their voting record shows. I wish you had heard the lady at the meeting eloquently express her feelings on our forced inclusion with the mainland, but then of course you were not at the meeting to hear it. Of course that won't be minuted either. As I said before "Whatthe" where is your support or do you think we are being treated fairly? Just say which. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all.
We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you?
The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway.
At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose.
Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already[/p][/quote]"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all. We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you? The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway. At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose. Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all.
We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you?
The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway.
At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose.
Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.
Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already[/p][/quote]"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all. We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you? The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway. At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose. Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.[/p][/quote]Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all.
We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you?
The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway.
At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose.
Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.
Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.
no the 1998 Local Plan is still in place the inspector did not pass the Old Core strategy
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already[/p][/quote]"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all. We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you? The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway. At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose. Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.[/p][/quote]Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.[/p][/quote]no the 1998 Local Plan is still in place the inspector did not pass the Old Core strategy Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all.
We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you?
The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway.
At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose.
Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.
Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.
no the 1998 Local Plan is still in place the inspector did not pass the Old Core strategy
Not my understanding so which plan is it that needs to be submitted and approved to,avoid the Government stepping in?
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already[/p][/quote]"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all. We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you? The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway. At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose. Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.[/p][/quote]Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.[/p][/quote]no the 1998 Local Plan is still in place the inspector did not pass the Old Core strategy[/p][/quote]Not my understanding so which plan is it that needs to be submitted and approved to,avoid the Government stepping in? John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all.
We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you?
The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway.
At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose.
Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.
Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.
OK
where do I start
We are a Borough not just Canvey , if Canvey residents are not happy with their representation within Castle Point Council that's a matter for their Cllrs to sort it out.
As for the 1998 Local Plan that is still in place and was not rejected by the Inspector he did not like the Core Strategy for many reasons, please be aware that the loss of development control means exactly that if Thorney bay submit 1000 that's what the inspector will decide just a Yes or No , no negotiations.
If you consider the requirements for 15 years housing and only the first 5 years being allocated and less than 50% on Canvey, so you can't moan about that !
Just because a submitted plan for 35 is replaced by 99 is not over development just because the numbers increase.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already[/p][/quote]"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all. We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you? The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway. At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose. Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.[/p][/quote]Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.[/p][/quote]OK where do I start We are a Borough not just Canvey , if Canvey residents are not happy with their representation within Castle Point Council that's a matter for their Cllrs to sort it out. As for the 1998 Local Plan that is still in place and was not rejected by the Inspector he did not like the Core Strategy for many reasons, please be aware that the loss of development control means exactly that if Thorney bay submit 1000 that's what the inspector will decide just a Yes or No , no negotiations. If you consider the requirements for 15 years housing and only the first 5 years being allocated and less than 50% on Canvey, so you can't moan about that ! Just because a submitted plan for 35 is replaced by 99 is not over development just because the numbers increase. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't,
Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ?
would I buy one yes I would .

If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already
"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all.
We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you?
The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway.
At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose.
Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.
Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.
OK
where do I start
We are a Borough not just Canvey , if Canvey residents are not happy with their representation within Castle Point Council that's a matter for their Cllrs to sort it out.
As for the 1998 Local Plan that is still in place and was not rejected by the Inspector he did not like the Core Strategy for many reasons, please be aware that the loss of development control means exactly that if Thorney bay submit 1000 that's what the inspector will decide just a Yes or No , no negotiations.
If you consider the requirements for 15 years housing and only the first 5 years being allocated and less than 50% on Canvey, so you can't moan about that !
Just because a submitted plan for 35 is replaced by 99 is not over development just because the numbers increase.
So which plan is it that they need to submit to avoid the Government stepping in.
Oh how I wish it was up,to the Canvey Councillors to "sort out" what is built on Canvey. They try, but are outvoted by the mainland Councillors every time. As to your comments on the 1998 local plan worth nothing if there was 35 properties proposed and 99 approved is it? They is not "a slight overdevelopment" it is a slap in the face for all the residents and a clear signal the Borough plan will be ignored when it suits the mainland Councillors. After all that is 64 properties less to build on the mainland.
If you lived on Canvey I bet you would feel the same way. You never know the Inspector my reject building on Thorney Bay because he may accept the hazardous facilities in the area. He may even think the Dutch Village should not be built on. He may even think the area near plot lands down to the A130 behind Manor recreation park suitable which a developer has also shown interest in and I believe the owners are prepared to sell to. How do you feel about that?
As I said before a lot of residents on Canvey feel we never get a say or are listened to anyway so what have they to loose.
You know you seem to think the Government will come to demand more building on Canvey than the mainland. Is not your real fear they may do the opposite? If course we may all loose out, but at least that would be fair.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: Do I think Canvey is being unfairly treated? NO I don't, Is the Point Canvey Supply site over developed ? Slightly but it has to be better than whats there ? would I buy one yes I would . If you get your Inspector wish to decide on development the Dutch Village will be the first to go for sure as the land is owned by a developer already[/p][/quote]"Slight overdevelopment" 35 on Borough plan 99 approved and you call that slight? I don't trust Castle Point Council at all. We are treated badly which is why we will probably better off with the Government making the decisions. So we may be developed at the Dutch Village the way the mainland Councillors vote we cannot trust them not to vote to approve it anyway. Can you? The feeling at the meeting was on Canvey residents are ignored and badly treated so what have we got to loose when we think we have lost it anyway. At least the Government won't be biased and from this last meeting and the current voting record residents may well feel they have nothing to loose. Be careful what I wish for? Well I wished for an unbiased lot of mainland Councillors and I certainly haven't had that.[/p][/quote]Sorry should have added there is no 1998 plan that was the one rejected by the Inspector for having too many houses on Canvey. That is why Castle Point Council are desperately trying to put one together.[/p][/quote]OK where do I start We are a Borough not just Canvey , if Canvey residents are not happy with their representation within Castle Point Council that's a matter for their Cllrs to sort it out. As for the 1998 Local Plan that is still in place and was not rejected by the Inspector he did not like the Core Strategy for many reasons, please be aware that the loss of development control means exactly that if Thorney bay submit 1000 that's what the inspector will decide just a Yes or No , no negotiations. If you consider the requirements for 15 years housing and only the first 5 years being allocated and less than 50% on Canvey, so you can't moan about that ! Just because a submitted plan for 35 is replaced by 99 is not over development just because the numbers increase.[/p][/quote]So which plan is it that they need to submit to avoid the Government stepping in. Oh how I wish it was up,to the Canvey Councillors to "sort out" what is built on Canvey. They try, but are outvoted by the mainland Councillors every time. As to your comments on the 1998 local plan worth nothing if there was 35 properties proposed and 99 approved is it? They is not "a slight overdevelopment" it is a slap in the face for all the residents and a clear signal the Borough plan will be ignored when it suits the mainland Councillors. After all that is 64 properties less to build on the mainland. If you lived on Canvey I bet you would feel the same way. You never know the Inspector my reject building on Thorney Bay because he may accept the hazardous facilities in the area. He may even think the Dutch Village should not be built on. He may even think the area near plot lands down to the A130 behind Manor recreation park suitable which a developer has also shown interest in and I believe the owners are prepared to sell to. How do you feel about that? As I said before a lot of residents on Canvey feel we never get a say or are listened to anyway so what have they to loose. You know you seem to think the Government will come to demand more building on Canvey than the mainland. Is not your real fear they may do the opposite? If course we may all loose out, but at least that would be fair. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns. Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over?
If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900.
So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not?
You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.[/p][/quote]You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over? If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900. So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not? You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over?
If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900.
So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not?
You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.
Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that?
The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.[/p][/quote]You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over? If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900. So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not? You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.[/p][/quote]Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that? The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

my understanding is that a complete Local Plan needs to be in place and inspector approved and I think other things are also linked into this removal of development control,
The new Local Plan is a whole new plan to replace the 1998 plan Canvey Point and Thorney Bay were listed in the 1998 plan for development approved by Cllr Blackwell, the Point plan has changed and we now have housing targets so things have to change to fit..


No one apart from developers want to build on Canvey but with out a Local Plan it is open season.


The plotlands behind Manor maybe the best place I agree but just thing if the shoe was on the other foot and people not developers are pushing to build 2000 homes near you ?
my understanding is that a complete Local Plan needs to be in place and inspector approved and I think other things are also linked into this removal of development control, The new Local Plan is a whole new plan to replace the 1998 plan Canvey Point and Thorney Bay were listed in the 1998 plan for development approved by Cllr Blackwell, the Point plan has changed and we now have housing targets so things have to change to fit.. No one apart from developers want to build on Canvey but with out a Local Plan it is open season. The plotlands behind Manor maybe the best place I agree but just thing if the shoe was on the other foot and people not developers are pushing to build 2000 homes near you ? Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over?
If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900.
So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not?
You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.
Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that?
The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.
can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option .
Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.[/p][/quote]You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over? If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900. So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not? You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.[/p][/quote]Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that? The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.[/p][/quote]can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option . Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Sat 16 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over?
If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900.
So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not?
You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.
Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that?
The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.
can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option .
Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan
Look at the "Echo" past reports on this 600 comes up every time. So please answer my questions. Am off to bed so may not be able to reply.
[quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.[/p][/quote]You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over? If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900. So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not? You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.[/p][/quote]Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that? The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.[/p][/quote]can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option . Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan[/p][/quote]Look at the "Echo" past reports on this 600 comes up every time. So please answer my questions. Am off to bed so may not be able to reply. John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Whatthe* says...

OK after this I give up

Do not take the Echo as an evidence base use the webcast and agenda notes
OK after this I give up Do not take the Echo as an evidence base use the webcast and agenda notes Whatthe*
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Sun 17 Feb 13

upset says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over?
If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900.
So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not?
You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.
Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that?
The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.
can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option .
Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan
Look at the "Echo" past reports on this 600 comes up every time. So please answer my questions. Am off to bed so may not be able to reply.
John you know or you should know the Echo is as biased as you and the standard of reporting of late asks many questions.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.[/p][/quote]You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over? If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900. So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not? You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.[/p][/quote]Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that? The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.[/p][/quote]can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option . Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan[/p][/quote]Look at the "Echo" past reports on this 600 comes up every time. So please answer my questions. Am off to bed so may not be able to reply.[/p][/quote]John you know or you should know the Echo is as biased as you and the standard of reporting of late asks many questions. upset
  • Score: -1

3:07pm Sun 17 Feb 13

John T Pharro says...

upset wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Whatthe* wrote:
i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built.
As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.
You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over?
If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900.
So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not?
You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.
Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that?
The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.
can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option .
Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan
Look at the "Echo" past reports on this 600 comes up every time. So please answer my questions. Am off to bed so may not be able to reply.
John you know or you should know the Echo is as biased as you and the standard of reporting of late asks many questions.
And you are the most unbiased, even handed, never agree with insults, non political and "well known" I suppose?
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whatthe*[/bold] wrote: i do not think the Government care where we build them as long as they get built. As I understand it all sites are to be considered for the other 2000+ homes there is not enough room for them all on Canvey despite CIIP concerns.[/p][/quote]You haven't answered the questions? What is the plan that needs accepting to avoid the Government taking over? If the local plan showed at Canvey Supply 35 properties and 99 approved why wasn't the 1998 local plan number implemented when the local residents accepted the 35 in line with the local plan. The whole point is the Government probably "don't care" where they are build in Castle Point and Castle Point Castle have approved plans in one way or other for developing Thorney Bay. That is not the green light to build on Canvey more is it? How many properties were shown for Thornet Bay in the 1998 local plan? If 300 a development by your definition of "slight over development" would be nearly 900. So tell me if Castle Point Council core strategy was rejected in part by the Inspector because of too many properties on Canvey what have Castle Point Council done to address this. I assume the 1998 local plan reflected the core strategy and if not why not? You still have told me your views on the plot lands Manor Rec proposed development. Please do.[/p][/quote]Just noticed should have said 600 properties at Thorney Bay are being proposed and outline permission given. It could be more, that makes it nearly 1800 by your "slight over development' definition. Don't forget Canvey Supply gives the developer a precedent to refer to. You see another grand unthought out repercussion decision from the Castle zpoint mainland Councillors, or did they want just that? The more I look at this the more the Government option to make the decisions appeals.[/p][/quote]can i suggest you do some research on the Government Inspector Option . Also only 300 included for Thorney Bay in 5 year plan[/p][/quote]Look at the "Echo" past reports on this 600 comes up every time. So please answer my questions. Am off to bed so may not be able to reply.[/p][/quote]John you know or you should know the Echo is as biased as you and the standard of reporting of late asks many questions.[/p][/quote]And you are the most unbiased, even handed, never agree with insults, non political and "well known" I suppose? John T Pharro
  • Score: 0

11:25am Mon 18 Feb 13

Ian P says...

Is it not strange that whenever there is an article about Castlepoint on this site it is always turned somehow or another to Canvey. This item relates to a development on the A13 and the word 'Canvey' appears 366 times in the comments above.
Is it not strange that whenever there is an article about Castlepoint on this site it is always turned somehow or another to Canvey. This item relates to a development on the A13 and the word 'Canvey' appears 366 times in the comments above. Ian P
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Mon 18 Feb 13

whataday says...

Ian P wrote:
Is it not strange that whenever there is an article about Castlepoint on this site it is always turned somehow or another to Canvey. This item relates to a development on the A13 and the word 'Canvey' appears 366 times in the comments above.
Yes I wondered about the plot being lost (pardon the pun)

At least on Canvey there is a sense of community and at least they have health services there which means they don't have to go to Southend for some blood tests, X-rays and out-patient appointments.

Whether you are talking about Canvey or the rest of Castle Point the problem is still the same - too much development and no regard for Green Belt.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: Is it not strange that whenever there is an article about Castlepoint on this site it is always turned somehow or another to Canvey. This item relates to a development on the A13 and the word 'Canvey' appears 366 times in the comments above.[/p][/quote]Yes I wondered about the plot being lost (pardon the pun) At least on Canvey there is a sense of community and at least they have health services there which means they don't have to go to Southend for some blood tests, X-rays and out-patient appointments. Whether you are talking about Canvey or the rest of Castle Point the problem is still the same - too much development and no regard for Green Belt. whataday
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Louisajo says...

Spot on! Too much development and no regard for the green belt.
No regard either for the population of Castle Point who have to live in a very overcrowded area that is being stuffed full of cheap, high density, ugly buildings that no one - apart from developers and some council members - seem to want at all.
Spot on! Too much development and no regard for the green belt. No regard either for the population of Castle Point who have to live in a very overcrowded area that is being stuffed full of cheap, high density, ugly buildings that no one - apart from developers and some council members - seem to want at all. Louisajo
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree