Unrestricted Document Pack

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OFFICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBERS’ UPDATE Fiona Marshall

13 December 2017

Dear Councillor

COUNCIL (EXTRAORDINARY) - THURSDAY 14 DECEMBER 2017

Please find enclosed the Members’ Update for the above meeting, detailing any further information received in relation to the following items of business since the agenda was printed.

4. FUL/MAL/17/01128 - Land East of Bradwell Power Station, Downhall Beach, Bradwell-on-Sea, (Pages 3 - 12)

Yours faithfully

Chief Executive

Page 1 For further information please call 01621 876232 or 875791 or see the Council's website – www..gov.uk. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

CIRCULATED AT THE MEETING

REPORT of HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES to ENTER COMMITTEE NAME ENTER DATE OF MEETING

MEMBERS’ UPDATE

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4

Application Number FUL/MAL/17/01128 Land East Of Bradwell Power Station, Downhall Beach, Location Bradwell-On-Sea, Essex Application to carry out preliminary ground investigations and associated works in connection with a potential new Nuclear Proposal Power Station at Bradwell-on-Sea, use existing building as core storage area and form site compound with associated parking area. Applicant Dr Stephen Mannings Agent Mr Ian Bryant Target Decision Date 17 January 2018 Case Officer Anna Tastsoglou, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish BRADWELL-ON-SEA Major Application. This application is presented to before Reason for Referral to the Members of Full Committee as it is of strategic and corporate Committee / Council merit.

3. SUMMARY (PAGES 9 - 11)

3.1 Proposal / brief overview, including any relevant background information

Please note minor change to paragraph 3.1.1.5.

3.1.1.5 A borrow dyke runs in an east-west direction to the north of the site along the lower end of the flood defences. The network of coastal nature conservation designations includes the borrow dyke and the area extending to the north of it. To the north of this borrow dyke extends the network of coastal nature conservation designations including The nature conservation network includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites.

Our Vision: To make a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 3 5. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS (PAGES 13 - 25)

5.4 Impact on the SSSI and protected habitat

Please note minor change to paragraph 5.4.3.

5.4.3 For that reason, the applicant has submitted an Ecological Appraisal, identifying the potential ecological constrains as well as a Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment determining whether there are any potential impact pathways that could result in Likely Significant Effects for the proposed ground investigations taking into account consideration any other relevant plans and projects.

7. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED (PAGES 26 – 33)

7.1 Representations received from Parish / Town Councils (page 26)

Name of Parish / Town Comment Officer Response Council Cold Norton Parish No comments. Council

7.2 Statutory Consultees and Other Organisations (pages 26 – 30)

Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation Object for the following reasons:  The flood risk assessment contained in the application amply illustrates why this site is wholly unsuited for any permanent industrial complex to be built It is noted that the there. development is not for the Maldon Society  Any potential buildings erection of a new nuclear and infrastructure power station. needed to avoid flooding risk would spoil the attractiveness of the region.  The potential power station would change the existing rural/maritime use.  A nuclear power station would

Page 4 Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation adversely impact upon employment and income from tourism.  Regard needs to be paid to the  vulnerabilities of the special protected sites and wildlife.  There is archeology relating to past important roman and christian and other historic uses of this stretch of coastline that would presumably become inaccessible once within a secure nuclear power station compound.

7.4 Representations received from Interested Parties (pages 31 – 33)

7.4.1 Letters were received objecting to the application from the following contributors and the reasons for objection are summarised as set out in the table below:  Don Manhire, 5, Springfields Drive, CO2 9TA  Additional comments from Ian Clarke, 13 Broomhills Road, , CO5 8AP  P S Tunbridge, 67 High Street, Burnham on Crouch, CM0 8AH  Steve Betteridge 56 East Bridge Road, , Essex CM3 5SD  Liz Carlton 56 East Bridge Road, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex CM3 5SD  Graham Farley, 30 Fairhaven Avenue, Colchester CO5 8EZ  Steve Burgess, 8 Church Road, , CO5 8QH  Barry Turner, 9 Grove Avenue, West Mersea, Colchester, Essex, CO5 8AE  R J Barry Jones, 34 Wycke Lane, Tollesbury, Essex, CM9 8ST  Christopher Wilson, 29 Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell, Essex SS5 4NH  Mr James Dawson, Stein Straße, Bremerhaven,  Mr Ian Crossley, 15 Grove Avenue, West Mersea CO5 8AE  Les Flack, Field End, St Lawrence Drive, St Lawrence Bay, Essex, CM0 7NH  Angela Livingstone (Professor emeritus of Essex University), 19 Road, Colchester  Ian Michael Chimes, 44 Victory Road, West Mersea, CO5 8LX  Mrs S Chimes , 44 Victory Road, West Mersea, CO5 8LX

Page 5  Mrs Varrie Blowers, 8 Shears Court, West Mersea, CO5 8DB  Ms Charlotte Jeffery, 41 The Lane, West Mersea CO5 8NS  Miss F R Mawson, 27 Armond Road, , Essex CM8 2HD  Carole Shorney, 19 Folly Lane, Hockley SS5 4SE  Malcolm Ede, 8 The Coverts, West Mersea, Colchester, Essex, CO5 8AW  Norma Creighton, Flat 3, Rosemary Court, Rectory Road, , CO5 0SW  Josh Warner, Retreat Farm, Bassetts Lane, , Essex, CM3 4BZ  Mr Paul Trimby, 9 Old Forge Rd, Layer De La Haye, CO2 0JS  Nichola Cain, 32 Darnet Road, Tollesbury, Essex, CM9 8XG  Mr and Mrs R. Lang, 14 Kingsway, Tiptree, Essex, CO5 0LS  Jessica, Voice Communications, The Nursery, Layer Marney Tower, Layer Marney, Essex, CO5 9US  Henry Spyvee, 16 Wakefield Close, Colchester CO1 2SD  Jim & Andrea Bailey, 27, Yorick Road, West Mersea, Essex CO5 8HU  David Slate, Berberis, West Bowers Road, Woodham Walter, Maldon, CM96RZ  RP Mullis, 83 Seaview Avenue, West Mersea, Colchester, CO5 8BX  Anthony and Margot Bailey, 13 St.Peter’s Rd., West Mersea Essex CO5 8L  Elfed Jones, 10 Singleton Crescent, Mochdre, Colwyn Bay, LL28 5AS  Mr and Mrs Cornell, 8 Bonington Chase, Chelmsford, Essex, CM16GB  Teresa Schrier (Business Owner), Premier Screening, Mote Cottage, Maldon Road, Bradwell on Sea, CM0 7HY  Deirdre Haslam, Pilgrims Rest, 12 Downs Road, MALDON, Essex, CM9 5HG  J Curtis, 19 Old Forge Rd, Layer-de-la-haye, Colchester, CO2 0JT  Hannah Cole, 36-38 Brook St , , Essex, CO11 1DR  J. Crispin Clark  J. Wilson, Sheepwash cottage, Ward Hill, The Fens, Aldringham Cum Thorpe, Suffolk, IP16 4QS

Objection Comment Officer Response No indication is given about the scale, size and layout of a nuclear power station, or its operation. The site is unsuitable to accommodate a nuclear power station, due to the fact that it is sited within a flood risk zone (taking It is noted that the proposal is not for the also into consideration the sea-level rise erection of a new Nuclear Power Station. from global warming and climate change), near nationally- and internationally-designated areas and residential properties. Defensive walls would be unlikely to provide sufficient protection during the lifetime of the plant.

Page 6 Objection Comment Officer Response The cost of building, running and decommissioning a nuclear reactor must make the cost of producing a unit of electricity far more than renewable energy production. Long-term storage of the highly radioactive spent fuel produced by the proposed new station will also be required, on this totally unsuitable site. Nuclear will be superseded by clean renewable energy sources long before work starts at Bradwell. The hosting of a nuclear power station would burden generations of future taxpayers. It is impossible to mitigate the negative impacts of a new nuclear power station and this Application should, therefore, be refused. A nuclear power station would adversely impact the fishing, leisure and holiday industries of the . It is unnecessary to put human health and the environment into potential danger with the erection of a new nuclear power station. The erection of a new nuclear power station would destroy the amenity of the area, leading to the loss of many existing jobs The erection of a new nuclear power station would result in significant impacts on the environment, the archaeological assets and the health of people living nearby. During the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station the site would be turned into a major industrial site. Concerns are raised regarding assurance against a serious nuclear accident. A problem could occur when moving radioactive waste through populated areas. Other renewable energy technologies together with economics benefits are fast moving with high potential and lower production costs. Concerns are raised regarding the impact that a nuclear power station would have

Page 7 Objection Comment Officer Response to the community and health care in case of an accident. Comment is noted. This earthquake was Bradwell is just 6.5 miles away from the in 1884. Part of the proposal involves the historic earthquake site of Peldon, installation of seismic cone penetration Colchester where a quake measuring 5.1 testing probes to measure geotechnical on the Richter scale damaged around properties of the ground. However, it is 1,250 buildings. noted again that the proposal is not for the erection of a nuclear power station. It is noted that a new nuclear power station at Bradwell is opposed unanimously by Colchester Borough Council, West Mersea Town Council and Comment noted, but it is reiterated that local MP Bernard Jenkin as well as the current application does not involve 10,000 mainly local people who signed a the erection of a nuclear power station. petition stating their opposition to a new Nuclear Power station at Bradwell. Fifty percent of Bradwell Residents petitioned also signed. Concerns are raised in relation to the impacts of the previous nuclear power station. There is no implication that the site is The application is premature since it suitable for the erection of a nuclear implies the site is a suitable location for power station and also the proposal is not high output nuclear reactors. for the erection such development. An objection is raised regarding the miscommunication with CGN/EDF. It is noted that the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the policies included Disappointment is expressed about the within it were approved by the Secretary clear support of the principle of the of State and a new nuclear power station development of a new nuclear power is in principle supported by policy D4. station by Maldon District and Essex However, it is noted that the proposal is County Councils. not for the erection of a new Nuclear Power Station. Concerns have been raised regarding the The control of this matter is covered by assessment of the nearby Bradwell A site separate legislation and is not a material by Magnox and Office of the Nuclear planning consideration. Furthermore the Regulator in order to identify if Officer for Nuclear Regulations has been strengthening of the heat exchangers consulted and did not raised objection to upright is required to withstand seismic the proposal. or similar shock. The ground investigations would result in Please refer to sections 5.5.2, 5.6 and 5.7 increased levels of noise and traffic. of the officers’ report. The proposed ground investigations The impact of the development is fully would have an impact on the assessed at the ‘Main Considerations’ environment, human health and local section of the report. businesses.

Page 8 Objection Comment Officer Response This Application is premature and incomplete. The applicant appears to confirm probability of contamination, and yet no This is secured by condition 15. data has been sought by the LA. The statutory and non-statutory definitions of “contaminated land” have been submitted. It is noted that if land on nuclear-licensed sites or defence sites is determined to be “contaminated land” the It is noted that the site is not a nuclear- sites are dealt with as “special sites” licensed site as it does not include nuclear under the Part 2A regime. The comments power stations, research reactors, nuclear submitted continue stating that “Once fuel manufacturing and reprocessing, and land has been determined to be the storage of radioactive matter in bulk. contaminated land, and where the relevant environment agency and local In relation to the land contamination authority agree (or in case of dispute the please refer to section 5.5.1 of the officer relevant Minister decides) that the land is report and recommended conditions 13 to also a “special site”, the relevant 16. environment agency will take over regulatory responsibilities from the local authority to ensure that appropriate remediation is carried out.” The Qualitative Risk Assessment for Land Contamination, including Radioactive Contamination (June 2012) Noted. commissioned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has been submitted. Comments in relation to the applicant’s The comments are noted, but this is not a trustworthiness are raised. material planning consideration.

8. PROPOSED CONDITIONS (PAGES 33 - 38)

Conditions:

Please note that conditions 15 and 16 have been reworded as follows:

15 In the event of any pollutant linkages are created during the works or contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then the development shall cease in the affected area until information is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, detailing how this unsuspected contamination or pollutant linkages shall be dealt with in the context of the investigation works.

No later than three months after the completion of all ground investigations hereby approved or at such time that ground investigations have not accrued for a period of three months the completion of the ground investigations hereby approved at the site, a site investigation and risk assessment (the

Page 9 scheme) must be undertaken by qualified persons and a written report of the findings must be produced, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:  Human health,  Properly (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,  Adjoining land,  Ground waters and surface waters,  Ecological systems  Archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of required remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

The scheme shall also include information regarding the treatment of arising from drilling and excavations, contingency measures to address pollutant linkages caused during the investigation works and aftercare on completion of the works.

This scheme must be conducted by a qualified person and in accordance with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11' and the Essex Contaminated Land Consortium's 'Technical Guidance for Applicants and Developers'.

REASON: To protect and prevent the pollution of the water environment and mitigate against adverse environmental impacts to prevent and mitigate against adverse environmental impacts and in the interests of protecting the amenities of adjacent occupiers in accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF and Policy D2 of the approved Local Development Plan.

16 No later than three months after the approval of “the scheme” referred to condition 15 above a remediation and aftercare scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. The approved remediation and aftercare scheme must be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The approved scheme of remediation shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works.

Following completion of the measures identified in the approved aftercare scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out and be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Page 10 Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted by a qualified person and in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11' and the Essex Contaminated Land Consortium's 'Technical Guidance for Applicants and Developers' and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of protecting the amenities of adjacent occupiers and to prevent and mitigate against adverse environmental impacts in accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF and Policies D1, D2 and H4 of the approved Local Development Plan.

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank