Decision details

Councillors Mrs P A Channer and B E Harker left the meeting at this point and did not return.

The Members’ Update circulated prior to the meeting detailed an amendment to paragraph 5.3.4 of the report and advised that a consultation response and seven additional letters of objection had been received.  An amendment to condition 5 was also detailed.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Chairman advised Members that under the Council’s public participation scheme three submissions had been received from:

·                 an objector, Ms Gemmill;

·                 Ms Allen on behalf of Bradwell-on-Sea Parish Council;

·                 the Applicant, Mr Murdoch (Project Development Director). 

In line with the scheme Chairman had reviewed the submissions and the Lead Specialist Development Manager proceeded to read out the submissions received.  The Chairman then moved the Officers’ recommendation of approval subject to the conditions detailed within the report and Members’ Update.  This was duly seconded.

A lengthy debate ensued and a number of Members raised detailed concerns regarding the proposal.  The Lead Specialist Place reminded the Committee that the application was for temporary, not permanent works with any harm being removed in five years and did not facilitate or grant anything in relation to a power station at Bradwell.

The Specialist: Development Management advised that the site would be restored to its current condition once works had taken place.  During the further discussions that ensued and in response to a number of concerns raised, the Officer provided the Committee with detailed information regarding the proposed works, which included:

·                 impact on the character and appearance of the area, including noise;

·                 heritage and impact on the World War 2 buildings, with particular concern being raised in relation to the Watch Tower and hangers.

·                 there being no requirement for net biodiversity gain due to temporary nature of the works;

·                 Impact on noise and light of adjacent residential properties;

·                 The close proximity of ecological receptors, the Officer clarified the nearest was 950m away.

·                 Hours of work and how those proposed were outside of the Council’s policy;

·                 Environmental impact, it was noted that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had raised concerns;

·                 Flood risk.

Members were advised by Officers that a number of the concerns raised would be addressed and monitored through the proposed conditions.

The Chairman then moved the proposal to approve the application in accordance to the conditions as set out in the report.  Upon a vote being taken this was declared lost.

During the vote, Councillor A S Fluker clarified that in accordance with paragraph 4.9 of the remote meetings protocol he would not be voting on this item of business.  He left the meeting at this point and did not return.

The Chairman then sought reasons for refusal from Members. 

Councillor E L Bamford proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendations, for reasons that there was no evidence that the massive scale of the proposals had been agreed by the Government, making it necessary to undertaken the proposed extensive groundwork investigations and insufficient information provided with regard to and[1] the effects on the wildlife and heritage sites.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response to the proposal, the Lead Specialist Place advised Members against a reason relating to the nuclear power station as this application was not for that and such matters were for consideration as part of the Development Consent Order process.  He explained that Officers did not consider the application had an impact on ecology having taken into consideration the consultation response from Natural England.  The Officer clarified that Members needed to consider the harm from the application in relation of the character and appearance of the area.

Councillor C P Morley left the meeting at this point and did not return.

Following further discussion and assistance from the Lead Specialist Place it was agreed that the reasons for refusal should relate to:

·                 Noise and disturbance on ecology matters;

·                 The historic environment referring to archaeology and the heritage assets.

In response to a question the Committee were advised that to include a reason that stated lack of information it was necessary to clearly identify what information was lacking.

The Chairman then put the proposed refusal for the two reasons as discussed, advising that the wording of the refusal would be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for reasons relating to noise and disturbance on ecology matters and the impact on the historic environment referring to archaeology and the heritage assets.  The exact wording of the refusal is delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman.