Sea Wall Realignment Planning Application

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. 

For a link to Hutchison's planning application to TDC and the Parish Council's objection response to it, please see our webpage.

LOPC submitted a petition (carried out on Change.org) to TDC on 16th February (the day before the scheduled cunsultation expiry date) when it carried 1345 signatures (more than the population of Little Oakley!) and the results can be seen in the Documents tab on the TDC planning portal. It would appear that TDC have still not closed off the application though, so you can still make a comment on this planning application if you wish.

On 14 July 2022, three Members of the Parish Council met with Natural England representatives, Haskoning DHV (Environmetal Consultants for Hutchisons) and HPUK, and walked the circular route around the site, with LOPC explaining the need to keep the footpaths open to the beaches and for resiting the footpath on the new sea wall on top of the bund, not behind it.

Hutchison Ports submitted four new documents to the Planning Portal on the TDC website on the 8th November 2022. You can see them by clicking on the Documents tab of the Application on the Portal.

In a nutshell they are saying they will give 'permissive access' to the beach at either end of the seawall along the existing footpaths - this is not the same as a public right of way. Whilst this is progress, LOPC still intends to object to this application for all the original reasons. The diverted new public right of way footpath around the back of the site will still NOT be on top of the seawall as it is at present, it will be behind it. In addition we fear that 'permissive access' to the beach could be withdrawn at any stage if, for example, it is 'found' that birds are being disturbed.

They are also proposing a new biodiversity area to the rear of the site.

This is the Parish Council's formal response to these amendments, submitted on 23 November 2022:

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.

LOPC submitted a further comment on 9th February 2024:

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