Dr O Mulka, supporter, addressed the meeting. He made reference to his long association with the village and the severe impact that the closure of the mine had had upon it. He stated that the best way to improve health and wellbeing was by improving the economy.
He added that he had started the canal restoration group as this was the only project that could bring back the heart of Measham. He referred to previous the regeneration of the village which had done nothing for the high street. He stated that there would never be another opportunity to regenerate the canal and the high street and this was a unique opportunity to create a leisure attraction.
Mr B Wilson, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting. He commented that he welcomed the opportunity to change the approach to the Section 106 Agreement. He referred to the June meeting of the Planning Committee where Members had expressed the need for the application to provide benefit locally, as well as restoring the canal. He reiterated the commitment to developing the canal and advised that an access road and bridge would be constructed, and the domestic waste would be removed from the bed of the canal. He made reference to the cost of protecting the route of the canal in addition to the Section 106 Agreement. He placed on record his thanks to the officers for allowing the application to be reconsidered.
Councillor T Neilson stated that he was extremely disappointed that after the June meeting, further talks were made with the applicant when no authority had been granted by the Planning Committee to do so. He stated that a decision had been made by the Committee and he found this to be extremely worrying. He added that if the officer in question was still in post, he would have taken this matter further. He raised a point of order relating to Council Procedure Rule 15.2, in that a motion in similar terms to one which has been rejected at a Council meeting within the past six months cannot be moved unless notice is given and signed by at least one third of the Members. He stated that nothing had been brought before Members to this effect and he sought advice on whether it was constitutional for Members to reconsider this item. He referred to the Money Hill application, in respect of which Members were required to take a vote to reconsider the application.
The Chairman proposed that the application be deferred to enable advice to be sought following the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.
The Chairman then put the motion to the vote and it was declared CARRIED.
