Sea Wall Realignment
This planning application was approved by the Planning Committee of TDC on 18th March 2024, subject to 23 conditions. The Parish Council was disappointed that the diverted footpath will not be on top of the realigned sea wall, but behind it, but it is pleased that the two permissive paths have a condition attached which will ensure that accessibility to Irlam's beach is maintained and unobstructed.
You can read the full decision report on the TDC Planning Portal.
This was the Parish Council's formal response to the Planning Authority (TDC) submitted on 14th January 2022 concerning planning application 21/02144/FUL | Proposed removal of vegetation, localised removal of topsoil, construction of a seawall, associated borrow dyke system and wave breaks and managed realignment of coastal flood defences by breaching of the existing seawall to create estuarine and coastal habitat comprised of approximately 76ha of intertidal mudflat, approximately 19ha of intertidal mudflat/saltmarsh transition, approximately 10ha of saltmarsh, approximately 5ha of sand and shingle and approximately 7ha of fresh/brackish water borrow dykes, together with associated engineering (including diversion of footpath), drainage and earthworks. | Land to The South East of Foulton Hall Harwich Road Little Oakley Essex CO12 5JA. by Hutchinson Ports (UK) Ltd.
Little Oakley Parish Council (LOPC) OBJECT to the planning application for the proposed Little Oakley Managed Realignment by Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd.
Our objection is based on the following factors, each of which will be addressed in turn:
1. The loss of the footpath along the top of the existing sea wall
2. The loss of access from Little Oakley to Irlams Beach
3. The loss of existing habitat and landscape
4. The impact on the seal population
We would also like it noted that although the Planning Statement supporting this application refers to a meeting between LOPC and the Applicants, this comprised a brief discussion at short notice, between the Chair and Vice-chair of LOPC and Jane Albins Head of Planning at Hutchison Ports on 30.11.21 — a point by which the plans were already at a very late stage of development. LOPC consider reference to this brief discussion as "engagement" as disingenuous.
The loss of the footpath along the top of the existing sea wall
Para 5.3.10 at page 30 of the Planning Statement submitted in support of this application states: "the impact on footpath users is one of minor adverse significance". LOPC fundamentally disagree with this statement.
Fig FP3 in the Planning Statement shows the proposed footpath diversion. The existing footpath runs along the top of the sea wall on a wide grass path, affording the walker extensive views of Hamford Water, the coast, sea and countryside. The area viewed from this path has been described as the most unspoilt part of the Essex coast — our nearest thing to wilderness. It is stunningly beautiful.
Its proposed replacement will run at the base of the landward side of the new sea wall. There will be no view, no feeling of wilderness or space. The proposed viewing platforms are not in any sense an adequate alternative. The reason given at para 5.3.10 of the Planning Statement is that the "sea wall has been designed ...to screen waterfowl within the compensation site".
The existing footpath leads into the Essex Way and is an integral part of Natural England's proposed England Coast Path (ECP). In 2017 Natural England produced an "Access and Sensitive Features Appraisal" which records the conclusion of Natural England's research into any potential impact connected to their proposals. When considering the current route on top of the sea wall Natural England's report concluded at section 4.5 that: "No interaction is anticipated on the proposed line of the ECP where it follows the existing public footpath along the sea wall". Natural England therefore, did not consider that the placement of the existing path on top of the sea wall would adversely impact the natural environment.
In the light of this report, LOPC consider that there is no reason why the realigned footpath, as with the existing footpath, should not be on top of the sea wall, retaining the uninterrupted views of the surrounding environment.
LOPC have also referred to the Tendring District Local Plan 2007, Policy TR4 "Safeguarding and Improving Public Rights of Way" and referred to in passing at page 21 para 4.4.18 of the Planning Statement. That policy states: "Where development affects an existing public right of way, planning permission will be refused unless the development can accommodate definitive alignment of the path. A formal diversion providing a safe, attractive and convenient alternative may be considered where appropriate". LOPC consider that as this proposed development does not accommodate the definitive alignment of the existing path and as the alternative proposed is significantly less attractive,
TDC cannot approve the current proposal in accordance with its own policy.
The loss of access from Little Oakley to Irlams Beach
The existing public footpath affords access directly from Little Oakley to Irlams (sometimes spelt
Earlhams) Beach via an extension of the Essex Way called Long Bank. Under the proposed scheme this footpath, and therefore access to the beach, will be lost. At low tide it may be possible to access the beach from Little Oakley via a much longer route from the north by continuing along the Essex
Way towards Dovercourt and then doubling back along the beach. However, this is potentially hazardous. At low tide it is possible to cross the creeks which cross the beach at Middle Beach but at high tide they are impassable, potentially stranding those who are unaware. At the moment the path provides both a means of access and escape.
Again LOPC have referred to Policy TR4 (see above) and note that in this case it is proposed that an existing right of way is extinguished but no alternative is provided. The application should be refused on this basis.
Little Oakley has very little public amenity. There is no village hall, no public playing field or public open space. What we do have is access to the beach which undoubtedly adds to the health, wellbeing and quality of life of the local population. This has of course been particularly important over the last two years and would be devastating if lost.
The loss of existing habitat and landscape
LOPC note that there is little consideration of the existing habitat and landscape within the Planning Statement. However, there is no doubt that the sea walls themselves have created habitats which are now of considerable significance. There are plant and animal species that are rarely found elsewhere. Natural England in its Access and Sensitive Features Appraisal (already referred to) notes at page 24 "..areas of wet grassland and fresh/brackish water to the landward side of the seawall are important to a number of species of non-breeding waterbirds". In this location records from 2013 have been kept by the British Trust for Ornithology which show that the following “red list” birds (those of the highest conservation priority) are present: skylark, lapwing, linnet, yellowhammer, corn bunting and cuckoo.
LOPC in particular note the concerns raised in the Royal Haskoning DHV Environmental Statement report at para 7.2 "likely significant effects cannot be ruled out for the Hamford Water SAC (specifically in relation to the Fishers Estuarine Moth)".
At page 30 para 5.3.10 the Planning Statement says that the change in landscape appearance will be "from the arable field with hedgerows to expanse of mud" which it concludes is of "negligible significance".
LOPC consider that this change would cause overriding harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape and that it should be rejected in accordance with the Tendring District Local
Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft Policy PPL 3 which states:
"The Council will protect the rural landscape and refuse planning permission for any proposed development which would cause overriding harm to its character or appearance including to … estuaries, rivers and undeveloped coast; ...native hedgerows, trees and woodlands..."
The impact on the seal population
LOPC note the limited reference to the seal population in Hamford Water. This population has grown steadily over recent years and is now estimated to be in excess of 500. 90% of this population arc common seals which pup from June-August and 10% are grey seals which pup from November-January.
The Royal Haskoning report (referred to above) confirms that the impact on the seals during the construction phase of the proposed development is likely to be "moderate adverse". It is hoped to mitigate this impact by scheduling work to avoid the pupping season and that this will reduce the impact to "minor adverse". However, bearing in mind that it is intended that the proposed work will be undertaken during spring, summer and autumn, but the majority of the seal population will pup in the summer, it appears that no account has been taken of the impact that this will have on the construction phase of the project which could potentially be extended by at least 6 months.
It is also noted that there will be an adverse impact on marine mammals in the operational phase of the project and a representative of the local British Divers Marine Life Rescue volunteer team has noted the close proximity of the realigned sea wall to a sewage treatment plant which poses an additional risk of contamination to the sea and the seals.
LOPC do not consider that sufficient weight has been attached to the disturbance of the seal population and the damage that this proposal will inflict.
The seals have also become a popular tourist attraction with regular boat trips taking visitors to view them from a safe distance. Any loss of the seal population would therefore not only impact on the seals themselves but also on the local economy.
Conclusion
LOPC are very concerned that an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat as a result of the proposed development at Bathside Bay, will, if this proposal is allowed, inevitably involve the loss of a beautiful coastal walk, the loss of a well loved local amenity, the destruction of existing habitat and lead to many years of disruption for local residents and walkers. On balance, this cannot be acceptable.
On 24th November 2022, LOPC further objected to the application following amendments submitted in November 2022 as follows:
Following the additional and amended information provided by the Applicant in respect of the above application Little Oakley Parish Council (LOPC) comment as follows.
We OBJECT to this application on the basis of our comments submitted on 14 January 2022 in which we raised four concerns namely:
1 Loss of the footpath along the top of the seawall
2 Loss of access from Little Oakley to Irlams Beach
3 Loss of existing habitat and landscape
4 Impact on the seal population
Since our comments were submitted there have been a number of further objections, further advice and reports from various consultees, a public meeting with the Applicants held in Little Oakley on 31 January 2022 and a petition objecting to this application with 1345 signatures. The Applicant, Natural England and LOPC had a site meeting on 14 July 2022.
Of the four concerns outlined by LOPC in its original comments, only one, the loss of access to Irlams Beach is addressed in the additional and amended information now provided. Access is now proposed to Irlams Beach by way of a permissive path along the redundant “arms” of the existing seawall which will allow continued access to the beach. Whilst LOPC welcome this amendment, concerns remain that the permissive path will not have the statutory protection of the existing PROW. The permissive path will be subject to monitoring for potential impact on the conservation scheme and could be withdrawn at any time if it is felt that the conservation objectives are not being met.
The remaining concerns raised by LOPC have not been addressed by the Applicant. Most significantly the proposal to place the diverted footpath at the foot of the seawall on the land side remains. In their amended proposals, the Applicant states that the diverted footpath “will offer views across the intertidal mud flat and salt marsh habitat being created.” This statement is disingenuous. The proposed footpath will not offer such views and nor will it offer any views of the coast. However, no evidence is provided to show that allowing the PROW to continue along the top of the seawall WILL disturb the seabird habitat. The Applicant says that “it COULD give rise to disturbance”. Similar conservation reserves, for example the RSPB Reserve at Wallasea place the footpath on top of the seawall as the Little Oakley path is currently. RSPB Wallasea is promoted as an area to “walk along the sea walls to see the saltwater mudflats and lagoons”.
The Applicant has amended the design of the mudflat areas to incorporate islands of sand and shingle within the site to accommodate nesting birds. These areas will be inaccessible to walkers and dogs, yet there has been no consequent adjustment to the proposals with regard to the PROW. The proposed viewing platforms are a wholly inadequate alternative and would be an inappropriate visual intrusion to the wilderness feel of the area.
ECC Green Infrastructure Strategy say in their “holding objection” that “The site … needs to be a place that contributes to providing health and well-being benefits through provision of tranquility and therapeutic connecting people to nature”.
Essex Highways PROW team state “the PROW teams preference would be to have the route on top of the seawall”.
ECC’s guidance for applicants wishing to divert a PROW pursuant to s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as the Applicant proposes states: “The proposed new route should not result in a lower quality or diversity of views for the path user”.
Many objections from the local community have commented on the positive impact that the present footpath has on their health and well-being and the negative impact that it’s loss would cause. Natural England are an advisory body. Whilst they may advise on best practice, they should not be in a position to override the professional opinions of other consultees nor those of local residents. Even Natural England themselves say “Under normal circumstances Natural England’s ECP team would encourage access to the top of the seawall to allow users continued enjoyment of the sea views as required by the ECP legislation as designed by Parliament”.
There is no justification for the current proposal. It is very disappointing that it has not been amended. It is the precautionary principle gone mad, anti democratic and deeply damaging.
The proposals are disproportionately weighted towards the potential disturbance to the relocated seabirds, as against the absolute and definite loss of the amenity enjoyed by users of the current PROW.
LOPC also note that their concerns regarding loss of existing habitat and landscape are not addressed notwithstanding that these concerns are also raised by Essex Wildlife Trust in their objection comment. Nor is there any further consideration of the impact on the seal population.
LOPC therefore maintain their objection to this proposal.
On 9th February 2024, LOPC maintained their objection to the application with the following submission:
The main focus of Little Oakley Parish Council’s (LOPC) comment at this stage relates to the loss of the footpath along the top of the sea wall, access from Little Oakley to Irlams Beach and the proposal for an activity shelter in addition to the viewing platforms. These issues relate to local amenities and the impact on the local community which we serve. We are aware of and support the many individual objections and those from concerned organisations (eg British Divers Marine Life Rescue) which relate to consequential loss of habitat, silting up of the Walton Backwaters and the impact on the local seal population.
Loss of the footpath along the top of the sea wall
LOPC do not accept that the diverted PROW should be sited at the base of the sea wall, on the landward side, thus denying walkers expansive views of the landscape and the sea which can be enjoyed from the existing route.
The RSPB reserve at Wallasea to which we have previously referred as a comparable site and where the footpaths are on top of the sea wall, IS a compensation site and is considered within the Defra and Natural England report “Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation Measures in England” 2016 *. We can find no evidence, within that report or elsewhere, which identifies that walkers on top of the sea wall will disturb the birds using the surrounding habitat. On the contrary, the successful development of sites such as Wallasea or Trimley in Felixstowe indicates that the presence of walkers on top of the sea wall does not disrupt the successful development of the compensation site. The RSPB’s approach is unnecessarily cautious.
Loss of access from Little Oakley to Irlams Beach
Whilst the retention of access to Irlams Beach is a welcome development, we are concerned that as the access will be along a permissive path, and the statutory protection previously afforded to the route as a PROW will be lost. There is a risk that the path will not be maintained to provide continuing access and could be closed at any time. LOPC propose that appropriate conditions be attached to any planning consent, if passed, identifying responsibility for the upkeep of the permissive paths and ensuring that they remain open.
We are very concerned that it is proposed that the impact of public access will be monitored. The Review previously referred to states: “Inter-seasonal variation in waterbird numbers means that it is extremely difficult to disentangle issues arising from habitat loss and replacement from natural variation”. Any variation from the anticipated use of the new habitat may therefore not be caused by public access, but could conveniently be blamed on it. Furthermore, against what metric is the “potential disturbance” to be measured? Are more birds expected to use the new site? A decline in numbers has already been noted in the existing site so is it reasonable to assume numbers will continue to decline? Or not? It appears that the monitoring will be entirely subjective and that those undertaking the monitoring are likely to err on the side of caution and we fear will act against the interests of the local community.
Additional infrastructure
During the consultation process LOPC have consistently indicated that they do not want additional infrastructure to be added to the site. The comparative wilderness of this area is what makes it particularly appealing.
It is therefore disappointing to note that in addition to the viewing platforms, which would be unnecessary if the PROW is sited on top of the sea wall, an activity shelter is now proposed which will introduce infrastructure where none existed before. Who will maintain it? There is a concern that it will degrade quickly, be liable to vandalism and become an eyesore.
Additional observations
LOPC would also like it put on record that, as evidenced in the findings of the above Defra and Natural England report, the Little Oakley managed realignment site will probably only meet its design objectives in the short- to medium-term. Academic studies have shown that mudflat within realignment sites are not sustainable and normally develops in to saltmarsh.
Little Oakley Parish Council therefore maintain their OBJECTION to this application.
* https://www.humbernature.co.uk/admin/resources/13694wc1076finalreport-1.pdf