Agenda item

Temporary use of Bathside Bay container terminal permitted under planning permission 10/00202/FUL dated 14 February 2013 as varied by permission 21/01810/VOC dated March 2022 (BBCT Permission) for wind turbine storage, staging, marshalling and assembly including the import and export, handling and deployment of concrete substructures, moorings, anchors and array cables and other related offshore green energy paraphernalia followed by decommissioning to enable continuation of container terminal use under the BBCT Permission.

The Committee was made aware that the proposal now before it sought permission for the temporary use of the Bathside Bay Container Terminal (BBCT) platform, established under the BBCT permission, as a "Green Energy Hub" (GEH). The GEH was designed and clearly intended to increase, for a temporary period of 15 years, port capabilities to accommodate the rapidly growing offshore energy sector, aligning with the Government's ambitions of installing 50 Giga Watt of offshore wind generating capacity by 2030. Moreover, the proposed GEH would facilitate activities such as wind turbine storage, assembly, and servicing for a temporary period of up to 15 years.

Officers felt that this temporary repurposing allowed for the beneficial use of the BBCT development before the full capacity of the BBCT was required, which was projected to be between 2034 and 2042. Additionally, the proposal would contribute extensively to the advancement of Freeport East, playing a key role in establishing Bathside Bay as a key component of Freeport East's development, in accordance with relevant local and central government objectives for the region.

Insofar as the principle of development was concerned, for the most part, the Local Plan was silent on offshore proposals for storage and distribution facilities for the off shore renewable energy sector, however this proposal was for a temporary change of use to take place on already approved infrastructure (the container terminal platform for the BBCT development). Having regard to the above, the NPPF, in paragraphs 157, 160 and 163 offered very strong support for proposals involving renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.  Local Plan policy PPL10 stated that proposals for renewable energy schemes would be considered having regard to their scale, impact (including cumulative impact) and the amount of energy, which was to be generated.

Members were informed that the development had been purposefully designed to ensure its compatibility with the ongoing use of the platform for BBCT, without slowing or impacting its progression. The activities associated with this GEH had been designed to be entirely reversible and the Applicant had demonstrated that carrying out the works required for the platform to operate as a temporary GEH would not prohibit the BBCT development from being fully completed after the GEH use ceased operation. In the event that planning permission was granted and upon cessation of the use, the site would be restored to its original state and details around those requirements could be secured by condition stipulating the removal and reinstatement of the site in accordance with an approved decommissioning strategy, overseen by the local planning authority.

It was reported that Officers and Essex County Council’s ecology department considered that the proposal would not result in significant adverse effects on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site.

The Committee was advised that all other material planning considerations, including statutory and third-party concerns had been adequately addressed through the submission of further information, and where relevant, would be covered in the forthcoming submission of further information as required under necessary, reasonable and relevant planning conditions (as set out in section 9 of the Officer report (A.2)), or where not exclusively relevant to planning, or indeed where matters straddled planning and marine law, a separate application for a Marine Licence would cover those matters. 

Accordingly, Officers felt that the proposal was acceptable in principle and it had therefore been recommended for approval.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members in respect of this application.

John Bowles, agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Steve Beel, Chief Executive of Freeport East and member of the public, spoke in support of the application.

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that –

(a)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report (A.2), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and

(b)    informative notes, as may be deemed necessary, be sent to the applicant.