Decision details

Petition to Council - Margate Harbour

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

A petition was received in March requesting the reopening of the sluice at Margate with the intention of resolving issues associated with odour from seaweed and sediment in the harbour. A cabinet report dated 31^st July 2014 discusses the proposals put forward by the petition relating to the sluice and provides a summary of local coastal processes including the interaction with local maritime structures.

Decision:

Option 1: To reject the proposal to reopen the sluice for the reasons set out in the cabinet report and to refer this decision to the next meeting of Council.

Reasons for the decision:

Technical evidence suggests that the reopening of the sluice would not resolve the seaweed and sediment odour issue.

Alternative options considered:

Study work on the subject of sediment movement and near-shore current and wave conditions indicates that reopening the sluice through the Stone Pier would not resolve the current odour and seaweed deposition issue. It would also have a relatively high cost, would require regular maintenance and increase operational risk.

Report author: Mark Seed

Publication date: 01/08/2014

Date of decision: 31/07/2014

Decided at meeting: 31/07/2014 - Cabinet

Effective from: 12/08/2014

This decision has been called in by:

Councillor Jo Gideon who writes , on behalf of Councillor Mrs Tomlinson, that the reasons for call-in are: (1) There are many local residents that hoped the Council would take the petition seriously and were very disappointed that the item was only discussed for two minutes; (2) The sluice gate always used to work and Councillor Mrs Tomlinson and many others believe that there needs to be more vigorous checks undertaken as to the reasons why the Cabinet feel that it would not in the future; and (3) There are several local residents who work within the environment (including the Lifeboat) who would like their input considered."

Accompanying Documents: