1,500 people object to Shoebury seawall

Southend Standard: 1,500 people object to Shoebury seawall 1,500 people object to Shoebury seawall

ALMOST 1,500 people have objected to a 7ft seawall across Shoebury Common – with just two people backing the controversial plan.

Southend Council will decide the £5.18million scheme – designed to protect more than 350 homes and businesses in Shoebury from flooding – in May after considering concerns.

More than 80 per cent of the objections were from the letters anti-seawall campaign group the Friends of Shoebury Common and the Burges Estate Residents’ Association distributed across Shoebury and Thorpe Bay for people to sign and return.

Ray Bailey, of the Friends of Shoebury Common, said: “It shows the tremendous support for the opposition to this scheme.”

Fellow member Peter Grubb, whose cafe Uncle Tom’s Cabin would be cut off from the seafront by the wall, said: “We are passionate about this area.

“We believe it is a travesty of justice that alternative proposals have not been considered. After all, Southend is a seaside resort and I’d have thought the council would want the seawall to enhance the area.”

People signed more than 700 of 5,000 letters a team of more than 20 volunteers distributed on behalf of the Friends group, whose alternative £10.3million plan to raise the promenade and beach huts was rejected as too costly.

Another 522 people put their names to the 1,200 separate residents’ association letters delivered by members.

Treasurer MikeStafford, who is also an Independent councillor for Thorpe, said: “We have had lots of complaints from members, saying the plan is going to destroy the seafront.”

The cross-party group of councillors that will decide the application in public may consider the duplicate letters as two blocks from the two groups which collected them, rather than individual objections, aswell as 268 other letters of objection submitted by residents.

Chairman David Norman said: “There is no general rule about this, but it does tend to be the case that planning committees will give more weight to individually written letters than they will to a ‘round robin’ type of letter, which is the same letter sent by different residents.”

The council decided to push ahead with the plan for an earth embankment across the public space, despite objections from eight out of ten respondents to its consultation in November.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:39pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Nebs says...

The moral of this story is that if you are going to give out letters, make each one slightly different.
The moral of this story is that if you are going to give out letters, make each one slightly different. Nebs
  • Score: 1

1:52pm Thu 27 Mar 14

MistyEmperor says...

You care more about Uncle Tom's bloody cabin than your own homes? !.
I doubt anybody who has actually experienced a flood would object to their homes being protected. I realise your suggestion may be more 'pretty' but that's not the offer on the table. If you want higher home insurance and the sea to come to you then i'm very happy for you. From the look of most of those in the photo i'm guessing it would actually be a bit of excitement.
You care more about Uncle Tom's bloody cabin than your own homes? !. I doubt anybody who has actually experienced a flood would object to their homes being protected. I realise your suggestion may be more 'pretty' but that's not the offer on the table. If you want higher home insurance and the sea to come to you then i'm very happy for you. From the look of most of those in the photo i'm guessing it would actually be a bit of excitement. MistyEmperor
  • Score: -4

1:56pm Thu 27 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

There were 10,000 against a care home closure, that was closed, now build the wall...don't ask peoples opinions, got nothing to do with them.
There were 10,000 against a care home closure, that was closed, now build the wall...don't ask peoples opinions, got nothing to do with them. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -4

2:08pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

I posted this once before but as once again people are going on about the number of objections I thought I would re-post it:

People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application.

This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include:

Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored.

Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed.

Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears,

Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way.

Covenants: None exist on the land.

Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction.

Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it.

Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process.

--------------------
------------


So please can we stop with this masses against sea wall, or at least tell us if the majority against actually live within the flood zone?
I posted this once before but as once again people are going on about the number of objections I thought I would re-post it: People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application. This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include: Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored. Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed. Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears, Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way. Covenants: None exist on the land. Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction. Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it. Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process. -------------------- ------------ So please can we stop with this masses against sea wall, or at least tell us if the majority against actually live within the flood zone? Joe Clark
  • Score: 4

9:46pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Democrat says...

These people are clearly idiots.
These people are clearly idiots. Democrat
  • Score: 2

10:53pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

Basically what it boils down to is: Views or Lives, those not within the flood risk zone don't want too loose the view but what about the lives of the people within the flood risk zone are they less important than the view that will NOT be lost, the earth bank is behind the beach huts you WILL be able to walk along the earth bank and still see the sea, you can't see the sea from the road at present so there is no loss there and anyway should the driver not be watching the road and not admiring the view...

What is more important the view or peoples lives?

Would the protesters be saying the same if it was their homes their lives that was at risk, would they moan if the defences were not built up and they got flooded...

I fully expect thumbs down galore but guess people think of themselves before others.
Basically what it boils down to is: Views or Lives, those not within the flood risk zone don't want too loose the view but what about the lives of the people within the flood risk zone are they less important than the view that will NOT be lost, the earth bank is behind the beach huts you WILL be able to walk along the earth bank and still see the sea, you can't see the sea from the road at present so there is no loss there and anyway should the driver not be watching the road and not admiring the view... What is more important the view or peoples lives? Would the protesters be saying the same if it was their homes their lives that was at risk, would they moan if the defences were not built up and they got flooded... I fully expect thumbs down galore but guess people think of themselves before others. Joe Clark
  • Score: -2

10:51am Fri 28 Mar 14

JayRSS1 says...

Joe Clark wrote:
Basically what it boils down to is: Views or Lives, those not within the flood risk zone don't want too loose the view but what about the lives of the people within the flood risk zone are they less important than the view that will NOT be lost, the earth bank is behind the beach huts you WILL be able to walk along the earth bank and still see the sea, you can't see the sea from the road at present so there is no loss there and anyway should the driver not be watching the road and not admiring the view...

What is more important the view or peoples lives?

Would the protesters be saying the same if it was their homes their lives that was at risk, would they moan if the defences were not built up and they got flooded...

I fully expect thumbs down galore but guess people think of themselves before others.
Obviously lives are more important than views. But what lives is THIS wall going to be saving?. NONE.
If there is going to be a wall it must be all along the length of the sea front..
If you go to the common you will see all the houses are raised above it by quite some way already. If waters did breach the existing sea defences the common would act as a good run off until it could be drained. Isn't that why the common is there in the first place?
If the flooding is severe enough to break through the existing sea defences here, what about further down the Esplanade where there are basement flats and properties at FAR greater risk? And wouldn't the flood water just flow around this new wall from the parts of the seafront where the defences aren't heightened? Say near the tennis club.

Sounds like a pointless exercise in bureaucratic short sighted meddling and tax money being wasted, all so the council can pat themselves on the back on being pro active on climate change.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: Basically what it boils down to is: Views or Lives, those not within the flood risk zone don't want too loose the view but what about the lives of the people within the flood risk zone are they less important than the view that will NOT be lost, the earth bank is behind the beach huts you WILL be able to walk along the earth bank and still see the sea, you can't see the sea from the road at present so there is no loss there and anyway should the driver not be watching the road and not admiring the view... What is more important the view or peoples lives? Would the protesters be saying the same if it was their homes their lives that was at risk, would they moan if the defences were not built up and they got flooded... I fully expect thumbs down galore but guess people think of themselves before others.[/p][/quote]Obviously lives are more important than views. But what lives is THIS wall going to be saving?. NONE. If there is going to be a wall it must be all along the length of the sea front.. If you go to the common you will see all the houses are raised above it by quite some way already. If waters did breach the existing sea defences the common would act as a good run off until it could be drained. Isn't that why the common is there in the first place? If the flooding is severe enough to break through the existing sea defences here, what about further down the Esplanade where there are basement flats and properties at FAR greater risk? And wouldn't the flood water just flow around this new wall from the parts of the seafront where the defences aren't heightened? Say near the tennis club. Sounds like a pointless exercise in bureaucratic short sighted meddling and tax money being wasted, all so the council can pat themselves on the back on being pro active on climate change. JayRSS1
  • Score: -1

4:11pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

JayRSS1 wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
Basically what it boils down to is: Views or Lives, those not within the flood risk zone don't want too loose the view but what about the lives of the people within the flood risk zone are they less important than the view that will NOT be lost, the earth bank is behind the beach huts you WILL be able to walk along the earth bank and still see the sea, you can't see the sea from the road at present so there is no loss there and anyway should the driver not be watching the road and not admiring the view...

What is more important the view or peoples lives?

Would the protesters be saying the same if it was their homes their lives that was at risk, would they moan if the defences were not built up and they got flooded...

I fully expect thumbs down galore but guess people think of themselves before others.
Obviously lives are more important than views. But what lives is THIS wall going to be saving?. NONE.
If there is going to be a wall it must be all along the length of the sea front..
If you go to the common you will see all the houses are raised above it by quite some way already. If waters did breach the existing sea defences the common would act as a good run off until it could be drained. Isn't that why the common is there in the first place?
If the flooding is severe enough to break through the existing sea defences here, what about further down the Esplanade where there are basement flats and properties at FAR greater risk? And wouldn't the flood water just flow around this new wall from the parts of the seafront where the defences aren't heightened? Say near the tennis club.

Sounds like a pointless exercise in bureaucratic short sighted meddling and tax money being wasted, all so the council can pat themselves on the back on being pro active on climate change.
So are you saying NO homes are at risk?

Please show me where it states that not a single home thus not a single life is at risk?

Surely if even a single home is at risk than the lives of those that live there are at risk.
[quote][p][bold]JayRSS1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: Basically what it boils down to is: Views or Lives, those not within the flood risk zone don't want too loose the view but what about the lives of the people within the flood risk zone are they less important than the view that will NOT be lost, the earth bank is behind the beach huts you WILL be able to walk along the earth bank and still see the sea, you can't see the sea from the road at present so there is no loss there and anyway should the driver not be watching the road and not admiring the view... What is more important the view or peoples lives? Would the protesters be saying the same if it was their homes their lives that was at risk, would they moan if the defences were not built up and they got flooded... I fully expect thumbs down galore but guess people think of themselves before others.[/p][/quote]Obviously lives are more important than views. But what lives is THIS wall going to be saving?. NONE. If there is going to be a wall it must be all along the length of the sea front.. If you go to the common you will see all the houses are raised above it by quite some way already. If waters did breach the existing sea defences the common would act as a good run off until it could be drained. Isn't that why the common is there in the first place? If the flooding is severe enough to break through the existing sea defences here, what about further down the Esplanade where there are basement flats and properties at FAR greater risk? And wouldn't the flood water just flow around this new wall from the parts of the seafront where the defences aren't heightened? Say near the tennis club. Sounds like a pointless exercise in bureaucratic short sighted meddling and tax money being wasted, all so the council can pat themselves on the back on being pro active on climate change.[/p][/quote]So are you saying NO homes are at risk? Please show me where it states that not a single home thus not a single life is at risk? Surely if even a single home is at risk than the lives of those that live there are at risk. Joe Clark
  • Score: 1

8:30pm Fri 28 Mar 14

southend brummie says...

When Shoebury floods after the residents succeed in stopping the wall, we can all have a good laugh. And no we won't contribute to any funds to help.
When Shoebury floods after the residents succeed in stopping the wall, we can all have a good laugh. And no we won't contribute to any funds to help. southend brummie
  • Score: 2

9:29am Thu 10 Apr 14

gordonbennet says...

Joe Clark wrote:
I posted this once before but as once again people are going on about the number of objections I thought I would re-post it:

People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application.

This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include:

Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored.

Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed.

Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears,

Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way.

Covenants: None exist on the land.

Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction.

Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it.

Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process.

--------------------

------------


So please can we stop with this masses against sea wall, or at least tell us if the majority against actually live within the flood zone?
There are plenty more reasons that can be sighted, other than those that you suggest. It's up to the objector to find valid reasons without making it too personal. As you say, you will only weaken your case if you include points that bear no relevance to the planning guidelines. It's not easy, but it can be done.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: I posted this once before but as once again people are going on about the number of objections I thought I would re-post it: People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application. This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include: Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored. Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed. Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears, Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way. Covenants: None exist on the land. Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction. Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it. Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process. -------------------- ------------ So please can we stop with this masses against sea wall, or at least tell us if the majority against actually live within the flood zone?[/p][/quote]There are plenty more reasons that can be sighted, other than those that you suggest. It's up to the objector to find valid reasons without making it too personal. As you say, you will only weaken your case if you include points that bear no relevance to the planning guidelines. It's not easy, but it can be done. gordonbennet
  • 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