Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1064