Issue - meetings
Meeting: 30/10/2025 - Planning Committee (Item 44)
Change of use of land to leisure use and construction of two holiday lodges.
Minutes:
Members heard that this application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in from Councillor Harris, on the grounds that, in his opinion, the proposal represented a form of backland development, would result in highway safety issues, and also potential harm to existing and neighbouring residents. The proposal sought permission for the change of use of land to tourism use and the erection of two lodges for holiday purposes.
The Committee was made aware that the site was outside of a Settlement Development Boundary and policies contained within the Local Plan did not specifically mention holiday lets in the types of tourism opportunities to be promoted within the District and overall were not clear whether a small-scale proposal such as this represented a departure. A recent appeal decision had allowed the conversion of a stable block into two holiday units, and while that differed from this application, it did add some weight to the acceptability of the current scheme. Furthermore, the proposal was considered by Officers to result in a small boost to the tourism offering within the District, and was also not within an isolated and unsustainable location.
Members were told that planning harm had not been identified as no objections had been raised regarding the impact to the character of the area, or to the impacts to neighbouring amenities, and Essex County Council Highways had raised no objections following the submission of additional information.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.
There were no updates circulated to Members on this item.
Stephen Nixon, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Could Members have comments on the status as backland? |
In terms of the backland residential development policy, where there are various requirements, this application would be looking at the access point which has had the same discussion on a previous application, it would be in the investigator’s view to see the access as a proposal whereas this is an existing access. To demonstrate that a long access would cause harm, it would have to be argued that it is new development in order to cause that harm, as an existing development, it would be hard to find the harm. |
|
Can Members get confirmation on the sewage outlet? |
It is a septic tank on this occasion. |
|
Can Members and Officers be absolutely confident that there is no potential for discharge of the septic tank for sewerage that close to the lake? |
Our position is that Officers could not 100% guarantee that would not be the case. Officers could suggest that if Members were minded to recommend approval where Officers could secure details of the septic tank and exactly how that would work but Officers ... view the full minutes text for item 44 |


