Meeting documents

Place Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday, 16th October, 2013 6.30 pm

Place:
Jubilee Room, Civic Centre, Southend-on-Sea
 

Attendance Details

ItemDescriptionResolution
Part I
376 Apologies and substitutions.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S J Carr (Substitute: Councillor Hadley), D A Garston, S J Habermel, P R Van Looy (Substitute: Councillor Woodley) and C W Walker.
377 Declarations of interest.
The following interests were declared at the meeting:

(a) Councillors Holdcrofft, Cox and Jarvis (Executive Councillors) - interest in the pre-Cabinet scrutiny item (Agenda Item No. 4) - attended pursuant to the dispensation agreed at Council on 19th June 2012, under S.33 of the Localism Act 2011;

(b) Councillor Lewin - Agenda Item 4 (Shoebury Common Flood Risk Management Scheme) - Non-pecuniary interest: Member of Burges Estate Residents Association;

(c) Councillor Terry - Agenda Item 4 (Shoebury Common Flood Risk Management Scheme) - Non-pecuniary interest: Member of Burges Estate Residents Association;

(d) Councillor Woodley - Agenda Item 4 (Shoebury Common Flood Risk Management Scheme) - Non-pecuniary interest: Beach hut owner and Chair of Burges Estate Residents Association who have proposed alternative measures.
378 Questions from Members of the Public.
The questions that had been received from Mr P Grubb, Mr P Lovett, Mr H Chandler and Ms D Johnson were answered at the meeting by the Leader of the Council on behalf of the Deputy Leader with Special Responsibility for Regeneration and Enterprise.
379 Shoebury Common Flood Risk Management Scheme
Resolved:

That the results of the consultation be noted and that Cabinet be informed that the Committee supports the continued development of Option 1.

Note:- This is an Executive Function.
Executive Councillor:- Lamb
6.30 p.m./9.10 p.m.
(The meeting was adjourned for approxiamtely 10 minutes at 6.45 p.m. to enable the meeting to be relocated into the Council Chamber)

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor A E Holland (Chairman),
Councillors M Assenheim (Vice-Chairman), R A H Brown, T K Byford, M F Evans, R E Hadley*, A J Jones, G Lewin, J McMahon, D F Russell, M W Terry, J G S Ware-Lane, P A Wexham, R A Woodley*
(*Substitute in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 31)
In attendance:
Councillors N Holdcroft, D J Jarvis, T Cox (Executive Councillors)
Councillors A Chalk, A Crystall and M Stafford
A Lewis, J K Williams, P Geraghty, R Atkins, D Skinner, R Skinner and T Row

Business

ItemBusiness
379(This is a pre-Cabinet scrutiny item.)

Pursuant to Minute 326 of its meeting held on 7th October 2013, the Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director for Place, by way of pre-Cabinet Scrutiny. The report appraised Members of the outcome of the consultation that had been undertaken on the proposed sea defence scheme on Shoebury Common and sought the Committee's support for the preferred option (Option1).

The Committee also had before it two supplementary reports by the Corporate Director for Place. The first of these supplementary reports informed Members of an alternative proposal that had been submitted by the Burges Estate Residents Association (BERA) and provided a technical, planning, environmental and financial assessment of that proposal for the Committee's consideration.

The second supplementary report, which was circulated at the meeting, analysed a document which had been submitted by the Friends of Shoebury Common responding to the technical review of their alternative proposal that had been undertaken by the Council's specialist advisers.

The Committee also received a Powerpoint presentation by Richard Atkins, the Council's Coastal Defences Engineer, which:

(a) appraised the Committee of the various options and proposals;
(b) provided an assessment by the Council's specialist advisers on the proposals of the Friends of Shoebury Common and BERA; and
(c) informed Members of the initial response by Natural England to the proposal of BERA, namely that this alternative scheme would be likely to result in a significant effect and "if the appropriate assessment was unable to conclude that there would not be an adverse impact on the integrity of the Special Protection Area, then it would only be possible to proceed with this alternative scheme if there were no other alternatives and it could be shown that there were imperative reasons of over-riding the public interest for proceeding.... The fact that an alternative was available (in the form of the preferred option) would appear to preclude the adoption of this alternative scheme".

The Committee discussed the matter and the various options in detail. In response to the issues raised at the meeting, it was emphasised:

• That the rationale for the scheme is solely the protection of residents, properties and businesses against identified flood risks. If there were no such risk the scheme would not be promoted;

• The funding for any scheme was dependent upon the criteria set by the Environment Agency, which includes securing value for money. Any more expensive alternative schemes would in all probability require the Council to meet the deficit.

• The funding from the Environment Agency is only available for a limited time. Delay would risk losing the funding thereby jeopardising the whole scheme and the opportunity to improve flood defences.

In response to the concerns expressed by Councillor Woodley at the meeting, the Corporate Director for Place undertook to meet with him to discuss any outstanding issues that he may have so that they could be reflected in the report to Cabinet. A summary of the outcome of this meeting would also be circulated to the members of Scrutiny Committee for their information.

 

Get the best from this site

We use simple text files called 'cookies'. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For more information, including how to turn cookies off, see more about cookies - or simply click the Continue button to use this site as normal.