Submission
from:- Castle Point Local Government Labour Party.
Consultation on the:-
CORE
STRATEGY AND GENERIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
POLICIES
PREFERERRED OPTIONS REPORT RESPONSE
In the
first instance this party regrets that Castle Point Borough Council allowed only 42 days consultation period.
From 29th September 2006 to
10th November 2006 is considered to be a totally inadequate period for consultation on such an important report.
Notwithstanding this and bearing
in mind that any consideration by this party of this document is limited to those items which are considered to be of most
significance to the well being of the residents of the Borough and are those which once put in place could not be revoked
or could only be revoked with difficulty.
The items in particular relate
to proposed erosion of the Green Belt and the Siting of the Storage of Hazardous Materials within the Borough.
With
regard specifically to the Preferred Option Draft PolicyCPT/CS/SP1-Spacial Strategy
We would
like to see the removal of paragraphs 4 and 5
and would prefer that the currently
designated Green Belt remains as it currently is, that is without any peripheral development.
It is said in 5.2.4 that the
Council does however recognise that the capacity of the urban area may limit the delivery of housing, ……
The operative word in this
sentence is “may”, as are the ultimate emboldened words in Para 5 of Draft PolicyCPT/CS/SP1-Spacial Strategy,
namely “as and when required”.
The use of the word “may”
and the phrase “as and when required” can only be explained by either a lack of knowledge of the available capacity
within the existing urban areas or else the creation of a loophole so that arbitrary incursions into the Green Belt can be
carried out at any time.
Notwithstanding this, it is
difficult to see how the administration of “peripheral development” on an “as and when required” basis
could possibly be applied fairly to those who land on the periphery.
The opportunities for disproportionate
financial gain both real and perceived should this proposal be adopted, are very disturbing.
While the possible potential for opportunist and corrupt practices would clearly be available.
It certainly is not clear from
the proposed text who would decide which part of the Green Belt periphery would be allocated for development.
Further to this we wish to
express vehemently our opposition to any development to the Great Burches Landscape Improvement (Green Belt) Area other than
that as described in policy EC20 of the extant Adopted Local Plan.
With
regard to the Draft PolicyCPT/CS/DC22-Hazardous Installations
Whilst concurring with the
content of paragraphs 7.23.3 and 7.23.4, we have trouble in reconciling the content of the Draft of the Policy with respect
to “Except for cases where the use existing hazardous installations is required in the National Interest, the……”
and the previously mentioned paragraphs.
Perhaps the Draft Policy should
indicate the hierarchy of a) “an adverse effect on heath and safety” or b) the “National Interest”.
These in all probability are mutually exclusive.
Further, if allowance for the
National Interest is to be made when considering Existing installations, then why not for “New Hazardous Installations”?
It would seem that there is a lack of consistency in the rational.
9th November 2006
Previous Press Releases
