A COUNCILLOR is fighting an appeal to build a block of flats on Canvey after it was revealed it would be built in a major flood risk area.

Proposals to build a block of four two-bedroom flats in Leige Avenue, Canvey, were rejected by Castle Point Council’s development control committee last October despite council officers recommending them for approval.

Now it has been revealed, had the development gone ahead, the flats would have been built a mere 700 metres from a breach point, meaning residents would have less than an hour to evacuate before water would reach the site.

There are eight “breach points” on Canvey which are around Canvey chosen to examine the effect of flooding should the defences breach.

Modelling of flood inundation from these points helps to provide both developers and Castle Point Council’s planners with a broad understanding of how inland areas of the island could be affected if ever there was a localised failure of the defence close to any of these points.

The proposals claimed the nearest breach point would be far enough away so that residents would have between eight to twelve hours before water would reach the site.
However this information was later proved incorrect last November.

Councillor Neville Watson, who made the discovery, is now fighting an appeal by the applicants to get the proposals approved.

Mr Watson said in a report to the Planning Inspectorate: “A major concern is the incorrect evidence included within the Flood Risk Statement.

“If my information had been accepted by the case officers as factual on October 30 during the consideration of this application, then members may have been able to take a more informative view and possibly found that flood risk should have been a crucial consideration.”

Despite the discovery, the council claims their recommendation for councillors to approve the application would not have changed were they aware of the error.

However, questions have been raised over how scrupulously applications are checked.
Mr Watson added: “These matters are highly technical but it is so important they are done right.”

This comes after the Canvey community came together to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the 1953 North Sea Flood which claimed the lives of 58 people on the island.

In a report Ian Butter from Rural and Urban Planning Consultancy, who is leading the appeal on behalf of the applicants, said: “Councillor Watson drew the development control committee’s attention to a potential technical issue and this was evidently debated.

“Guidance was subsequently clarified in correspondence. Nevertheless, this was not of itself sufficient to bring about a change in stance, nor any formal retraction of the position adopted by the Environment Agency.”

A spokesman for Castle Point Council said: “At the time the recommendation was made, officers were not aware that the EA has provided incorrect information. In any event, the officer recommendation would not have changed if the correct information had been to hand. The development was still acceptable in planning terms.

“All responses to planning applications are carefully assessed. In the case of comments from statutory consultees (such as the Environment Agency) it is assumed that the technical background work is accurate.

“Having received a credible and cogent response from a statutory consulteee the council then proceeds to a recommendation from information to hand from all sources.”

A spokesman from the Environment Agency said: “The Flood Risk Assessment was sent to us in September 2012 and we responded to the application in October 2012. We raised no objection to the application provided the Council were satisfied that the development was safe.

“However, after making this response we realised that the developer’s Flood Risk Assessment had not been filled out accurately. There was a closer breach point to the proposed site than had been identified on the Flood Risk Assessment, which meant there was a scenario which had been left out of the assessment where water could potentially reach the properties faster than had been identified on the application.

“We immediately told the council of this error. However, after talking to a council planner, we were told that the same planning decision would have been made if they were presented with the corrected data.”