SUTTON BRIDGE PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of an Extraordinary Meeting of the Parish Council held at the Curlew Centre on Tuesday 6th March 2012 commencing at 7.30 p.m.
Attendance: Cllrs M Booth, S Booth, Brandon-King (Chairman), Brewis, Dewsberry,
Grimwood, Preston. S England – Parish Clerk
28 members of the public.
1 member of the press.
Attending for purpose of presentation:
Mr David Pullen – Programme Manager – Lincs Waterways P’ship
Cllr Eddy Poll – LCC Executive Member for Economic Development
Mr Justin Brown – LCC Head of Enterprise
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, he explained that there was no public forum as the general purpose of the meeting was for a discussion under agenda item 3 during which standing orders would be suspended.
55.12 Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Croxford, Hills, J Rowe and
T Rowe. It was proposed to note the Cllrs’ apologies, seconded and RESOLVED.
56.12 Declarations of Interest – To receive declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act
No interests declared.
7.35 pm It was RESOLVED to suspend standing orders in order to allow everyone to make a contribution during the next agenda item.
57.12 Question & Answer Session – Marina Project Plans
The Chairman introduced Mr Pullen, Mr Brown and Cllr Poll and thanked them for attending. Members of the public and Cllrs were then invited to put forward their questions to the presentation team. Discussions continued for approximately one and a half hours during which the following points were clarified;
· There would be no facility at the Marina for launching vessels into the water, boats would therefore not be transported to the Marina via the public highway.
· The sea defence would not be compromised during construction of the Marina.
· The drainage system in the area would remain unchanged.
· The revised parking plan along West Bank would accommodate 28 vehicles including 3 spaces for disabled parking. Ratio of parking spaces to berths deemed to be correct.
· No service would be provided to empty ‘pump out’ toilets, a facility was available at Wisbech Marina or could be emptied at open sea.
· Electricity supply and mains water would be available at the pontoons.
· The cost of a mooring was likely to be £125 per metre per annum however this figure was subject to confirmation.
· Customs and Excise would continue to be responsible for monitoring activity in the area.
· A study carried out by Colvill Consulting in April 2008 had estimated that SB would benefit £200,000 annually from the Marina based on additional spending in local facilities. The study was centred around other marinas in similar areas and was based on ‘spend per head’ rather than the facilities that were actually available.
· Consultants did visit SB but the survey did not include local marinas such as Wisbech, Fosdyke or Boston.
· The business plan submitted to the Parish Council was not current and a new one was being prepared for Nene Marine taking into account the existing economic climate.
· Since 2005 Nene Marine had issued 38 press releases concerning the project.
· In 2006 a presentation held at the Bridge Hotel designed to provide information on the Marina attracted 160 members of the public who reacted favourably to the project.
· The Parish Council approved the original planning application.
· 30 berths at the Marina are already booked; 28 belong to people in the local area.
· The PC was concerned about the proposed plans due to the significant sum of S106 funds being allocated to the project and questions raised over its financial viability.
· DEFRA had predicted that the coastline was sinking at a rate of 10mm per year due to isostatic rebound. The Environment Agency was the organisation responsible for ensuring that consideration had been given to the fact that the bank would need to be raised at some point in the future.
· Nene Marine’s Articles of Association state that public accounts do not have to be produced.
· Messrs Pullen & Brown and Cllr Poll were not familiar with Nene Marine’s Articles of Association.
· The £400,000 S106 monies allocated to the Marina Project was initially for the benefit of three separate projects; two of which proved undeliverable.
· The SHDC Portfolio Holder had indicated that if any of the three projects failed then the some allocated to that project would go ‘back in the pot’.
· In addition, the Marina project was also receiving £120,000 from the Waterways Partnership and the remaining costs for construction were being covered by European funding.
· It was unknown if the Parish Council had received any letters of complaint in relation to the Marina project.
· It was difficult to predict the number of jobs that would be created due to the project but calculations were generally based on one job per £35,000-£40,000
‘spend’.
· In order to obtain information the Parish Council had invited the Directors of Nene Marine to make presentations on the project however no response had been received from them.
· Lincs County Council would construct and own the Marina, it would be leased to Nene Marine for a peppercorn rent.
· The Marina would have to be managed by a competent authority; Fenland Port Authority would have a management agreement with Nene Marine.
· A 70ft sailing boat had been booked to take people out on sailing trips into the Wash.
· The approximate annual running costs for the Marina could not be confirmed.
· There would be a clear legal agreement between LCC, Fenland Port Authority and Nene Marine defining the roles and responsibilities of each party.
· The project would only work with public sector intervention, it was not viable as a stand alone project.
· A lease agreement was being arranged between LCC and Henry Smith Charity for the land adjacent to the river bank. Work would not commence until the lease was in place.
· In the event that the project fails the Marina would revert to LCC until such time a new organisation was identified to manage it.
· Nene Marine would deal solely with the leisure moorings, Henry Smith Charity and Fenland would continue to manage their moorings.
· The Marine Management Organisation would be in control of issues relating to safety measures for; wildlife, stricken vessels and users of the Marina. They would be considered during the MMO license application procedure.
· The Fenland Port Authority was responsible for the contingencies designed to prevent leisure craft affecting commercial vessels.
· It was possible that vessels currently moored at Wisbech would migrate to SB.
· Undertaking a study to investigate levels of siltation would be difficult as every
river is different. A hydrographic survey boat would be regularly monitoring the situation.
· It was not possible to reduce the size of the project.
During the ‘Question & Answer Session’ Cllrs M Booth and S Booth declared their interests in any discussions concerning The Henry Smith Charity as they are tenants of the organisation.
The following general concerns were also raised;
· Parking on East Bank could cause obstruction for agricultural vehicles.
· If part of the £400,000 contribution was returned to the S106 fund then it could be used for other projects such as the sports pavilion.
· There was an opportunity to create other attractions in SB for users of the Marina to visit; for example, nature trails or a museum.
· Various concerns relating to Nene Marine’s Articles of Association and CIC (Community Interest Company) governance regulations.
· Concern that Nene Marine’s latest business plan would not be made public.
· The joint funding agreement put in place for the three LCC marine projects would seem to indicate that funds could not be transferred between projects without the agreement of the other parties.
· Is SB getting value for money?
The Chairman thanked Messrs Pullen and Brown and Cllr Poll for attending the meeting.
9.10 pm It was RESOLVED to re-instate standing orders in order to discuss the following agenda item.
58.12 To resolve on observations to be put forward for planning application
H18-0066-12 – Variation of condition 2 of H18-0742-10 to allow amended works/parking bays and removal of condition 8 of H18-0743-10 relating to signage.
Cllrs considered the application; discussions centred around the following issues;
· The shortage of parking that already exists in the area.
· The installation of appropriate signage to indicate that the parking bays were for the use of marina users only.
· Heavy traffic in the area; particularly HGV’s.
· How businesses already operating in the area may be affected.
· The provision of a ‘turning facility’ to allow motorists adequate space in which to turn their vehicle round.
· The implementation of a 30 mph speed restriction on the road leading to the port.
· The raising of the sea bank which may need to take place at some point in the future due to the effect of isostatic rebound.
In response to ‘Variation of condition 2’ contained in the planning proposal it was proposed to put forward the following requests/observations to SHDC Planning Department;
· The area already has a shortage of parking; employees of local businesses may wish to use the parking spaces. Measures need to be taken in order to promote the fact that parking bays are for Marina users only.
· The road is used by heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the Port. Consideration should be given to the danger this presents to both pedestrians and motorists manoeuvring their vehicles in the area; Council would recommend that a 30 mph speed restriction is introduced.
· A provision should be made to include a ‘turning facility’ in order to allow motorists adequate space in which to turn and exit the area.
· The Environment Agency should be consulted on all matters that may have an effect on the sea defence. Confirmation to be obtained from the EA that it has taken into account the effects of isostatic rebound which may result in a requirement for the level of the sea bank to be raised.
Seconded and RESOLVED.
In response to ‘Removal of condition 8’ contained in the planning proposal it was proposed to put forward the following observations to SHDC Planning;
· Council strongly objects to the removal of condition 8 due to the hazard and danger presented by the large number of heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the Port.
· Council recommends that additional signage is installed to indicate that parking is ‘For Marina users only’.
Seconded and RESOLVED.
It was proposed to request that; due to the complexity of the proposal and the significant number of observations; the planning application be referred to the full Planning Committee. Seconded and RESOLVED.
The meeting closed at 21.35 pm
Signed…………………………………. Date………………………..
Chairman – Sutton Bridge Parish Council
25