Agenda and minutes

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Bray (with Councillor V E Guglielmi substituting).

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

There were none on this occasion.

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District of Tendring and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

There were none on this occasion.

Variation of conditions 2 (Approved Plans / Documents), 28 (Operational Lighting), 41 (Highways), 42 (Highways), 43 (Highways), 44 (Highways), 52 (Operational Air Quality Controls) and 53 (Operational Traffic Noise Attenuation) of application 10/00202/FUL in respect of the proposed Bathside Bay container terminal, Harwich.

The Committee recalled how, in 2003, Hutchison Ports (UK) Limited (“HPUK”) had applied for planning permission for the construction of a new container terminal and related works at Bathside Bay, Harwich, and the provision of compensatory habitats at Little Oakley and Hamford Water. On 29th March 2006, permissions, inter alia, for reclamation works and a container terminal; a small boat harbour; the managed realignment of the coastline and creation of compensatory inter-tidal habitats off-site, and listed building consent in respect of the partial demolition of the long berthing arm attached to a listed Train Ferry Gantry had been granted by the Secretary of State, following concurrent Public Inquiries held between 20th April 2004 and 21st October 2004. Those developments had been subject to rigorous assessments and had been found on balance to be acceptable. In particular, with regard to the then Habitats Regulations, the Secretary of State had found that Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) outweighed the identified harm to the integrity of a European site (the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA).

Members were reminded that, in 2010, HPUK had applied for replacement planning permissions for the reclamation works and container terminal (the Container Terminal), and a small boat harbour (the Small Boat Harbour). Those permissions (10/00202/FUL and 10/00203/FUL) had been granted by the Council on 14 February 2013 and remained extant, but that development needed to have commenced on, or before, 29th March 2022.

The Committee heard how the application now before them sought permission to vary eight of the conditions that had formed part of the 2013 planning permission for the development of the Container Terminal at Bathside Bay, in order to allow for a phased start to the development by 29th March 2022. It was proposed that the list of approved plans specified in one condition be amended, with seven of the originally approved plans being superseded. The applicant had also requested that the wording of seven other conditions be amended to change the timing of their requirements. The original conditions required that details of specific elements of the scheme would be submitted to, and approved by, the Council prior to the commencement of the development, and in the case of one condition required that off-site highway works be implemented before the development could be operated. The applicant had proposed that the wording of those conditions be changed so that an initial phase of the development could commence without those conditions having to be discharged first.

Members were aware that there was a related application (21/01792/VOC) in respect of the Small Boat Harbour, which was the subject of a separate report and would be considered later in the meeting. There was also an application (21/02144/FUL) for planning permission for the provision of compensatory habitats at Little Oakley and Hamford Water. The reclamation works forming part of the Container Terminal and Small Boat Harbour permissions would lead to the loss of approximately 69ha of feeding habitat in the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 210.

Variation of condition 20 of permission 10/00203/FUL to require the approval and installation of an operational lighting scheme before the commencement of operation of the site (rather than the commencement of development).

The Committee was reminded of the relevant background information to this application which had been previously reported in relation to report item A.1 above.

Members heard how the application now before them sought permission to vary one of the conditions (no. 20) on the 2013 planning permission for the Small Boat Harbour (10/00203/FUL). It was proposed that the wording be amended to change the timing of the condition. The original condition had required that the details of the operational lighting were submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development.

The applicant had proposed that the wording be changed so that the details were submitted and approved, and the operational lighting installed, prior to each phase of the harbour becoming operational. There was a parallel application (21/01810/VOC) for permission to vary conditions attached to the 2013 Container Terminal permission.

The Committee was informed that Officers were satisfied that the variation proposed to the Small Boat Harbour permission was justified and acceptable though Members were reminded of the concerns and objections of Natural England as previously reported and recorded above in relation to report item A.1.

It was reported that, in the light of Natural England’s recent objection, which had not been withdrawn, Officers were reluctant to recommend the grant of permission but given the significance of the Container Terminal development, with which the Small Boat Harbour was inextricably linked, and the limited time in which to consider it, Officers believed it was appropriate to put the application before Members now.

If, ultimately the decision was taken to grant this application, the new planning permission would need to restate the previous planning conditions (save as varied by the Committee) which would control the development. However, bearing in mind that a number of other pre-development conditions on the 2013 planning permission were being sought to be discharged (or partially discharged), pursuant to applications 21/01624/DISCON and 21/01816/DISCON, to enable the first phase to go ahead on existing land i.e. without land reclamation/marine works taking place, in line with the PPG those were provisionally recommended to be amended to compliance conditions wherever possible.

The Committee was reminded that the work to update the planning conditions was on-going and it was therefore recommended that Members grant the Assistant Director of Planning authority to continue to update the remaining pre-commencement planning conditions as those were discharged by the Council through the discharge of conditions applications prior to the issuing of a new planning permission, pursuant to this application. There would also need to be appropriate planning obligations in place to ensure (amongst other things) delivery of the compensatory habitats at Little Oakley, and again the Assistant Director (Planning) would require authority to approve such supplemental or other legal agreement as was necessary to make the development acceptable, so that if Members resolved to grant planning permission there was an appropriate legal framework of obligations in place.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.