Erection of new front wall, gates and resin driveway, along with fencing to the side boundaries.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared that he was pre-determined on this application.

It was reported that this application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and that it sought retrospective planning permission to retain a new front wall with a gate, driveway and fencing along the shared boundary. Planning permission was required as the wall, gate and fencing all exceeded 1m in height and were adjacent to a public highway.

Members were informed that, in the opinion of the Officers, the proposed works would not result in significant visual harm occurring to the character and appearance of the area, nor would it pose significant harm to the neighbouring amenities. However, it would pose a serious and detrimental risk of harm to highway users, sufficient enough to warrant an Officers’ recommendation of refusal for this application.

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 refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Assistant Planner (BB) in respect of the application.

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

Shaun Taylor, member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor John Cutting, Chairman of Little Clacton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Jeff Bray, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Goldmanand:-

RESOLVED that –

(a)     the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reason(s) as set out below or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained.

“The height of the wall, gate and fencing along the shared boundaries will reduce the visibility of users exiting the application site, as well as pedestrians utilising the public footpath abutting the boundary wall. This impeded visibility will pose a serious and detrimental risk to pedestrian safety who frequent the public footpath and who are entitled to cross highway land in a safe and unobstructed manner. 

The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and Policy CP2 of Part 2 of the Adopted Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond.”

(b)     the applicant be sent any informative notes, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.