Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room - Town Hall, Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 1SE. View directions

Contact: Emma Haward  01255686007

Items
No. Item

191.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Codling, with no substitute.

 

192.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Bray, reminded the Committee that he had not been present when A.1 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00046/FUL – TOPSL HOUSE, HIGH STREET, MISTLEY, MANNINGTREE hadoriginally been brought before the Committee and that therefore he would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and would take no part in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

 

Councillor Harris declared a personal interest in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00202/FUL – MANOR FIELD, THORPE ROAD, TENDRING due to the fact that he had “called-in” the application and that he was the Ward Member. He stated that he was not pre-determined on this matter and that, therefore, he would participate at the appropriate juncture in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

 

Councillor Bray declared a personal interest in A.5 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/01527/FUL – 152 CONNAUGHT AVENUE, FRINTON ON SEA CO13 9AD due to the fact that he was also a member of Frinton and Walton Town Council. He stated that he was not pre-determined on this matter however, on the grounds that he personally knew the applicant and he would not therefore, participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

 

193.

Questions on Notice pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

Minutes:

There were none on this occasion.

 

194.

Chairman's Opening Remarks

Minutes:

The Chairman informed the Committee that prior to the commencement of the meeting Councillors Coley and G Guglielmi had informed the Council that they no longer wished to object to A.1 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00046/FUL – TOPSL HOUSE, HIGH STREET MISTLEY, MANNINGTREE.

 

The Chairman advised the Committee and the public gallery that the Minutes of their previous meeting held on 21 December 2021 had not been published in time to be included on the Agenda for this meeting and that they would be taken now as an item at the next Committee meeting.

 

He further informed the meeting that agenda item A.1 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00046/FUL TOPSL HOUSE, HIGH STREET MISTLEY MANNINGTREE was a previously deferred item and that consequently there would be no speakers under the Public Speaking Scheme on this application.

 

195.

A.1 PLANNING APPLICATION – 21/00046/FUL – TOPSL HOUSE, HIGH STREET MISTLEY, MANNINGTREE pdf icon PDF 284 KB

This application was originally referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Coley due to concerns with the building being listed and being in a Conservation Area, the introduction of a stairway access to the first floor, change of use of the first floor to residential, the building is located on the edge of a busy working dock and parking issues. This application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting held on 28th September 2021. The Planning Committee deferred the application to allow for further negotiations on the application in relation to the omission or amendment of the balcony details to the rear and to address ECC Heritage objections as well as consideration of the external staircase to address overlooking and private amenity issues with the immediate neighbouring property.

 

The application has now been amended with the external staircase omitted. As such, the application now relates solely to the proposed balcony and window to a door to the Quay elevation only.

Minutes:

Further to Minute 192 above and for the reasons stated therein, Councillor Bray withdrew from the meeting during the Committee’s consideration of this planning application and its decision making thereon.

 

Members recalled that this application had originally been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Coley due to his concerns with the building being listed and being in a Conservation Area, the introduction of a stairway access to the first floor, change of use of the first floor to residential, and that the building was located on the edge of a busy working dock and there were parking issues. This application had been submitted to the Planning Committee’s meeting held on 28th September 2021 when it had been deferred in order to allow for further negotiations on the application in relation to the omission or amendment of the balcony details to the rear and to address Essex County Council’s (ECC) Heritage objections as well as consideration of the external staircase to address overlooking and private amenity issues with the immediate neighbouring property.

 

The Committee was informed that the application had now been amended with the external staircase omitted. As such, the application related now solely to the proposed balcony and window to a door to the Quay elevation only.

 

Members recalled that the application site was located within the settlement development boundary as defined within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017. The application site was also located within the Conservation Area and adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building.

 

It was reported that ECC Heritage had been consulted and had an objection to the proposed balcony.

 

The proposals were not considered by Officers to cause any impact upon the neighbouring amenities.

 

Mistley Parish Council had not commented on the amended application and no further letters of representations were received on the amended 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 approval.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (TF) in respect of the application.

 

Due to the application being previously deferred, there were no speakers under the Public Speaking Scheme.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Had any objections been received?

 

The Planning Officer referred to paragraph 5 of the officer’s report, where it stated that no objections had been received.

 

Due to a need to rectify a problem with her motor vehicle Councillor Fowler left the meeting at this juncture and did not return before the meeting had ended.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

 

RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following planning and conditions (and reasons):-

 

1 The development hereby permitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

196.

A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION – 21/00202/FUL – MANOR FIELD, THORPE ROAD, TENDRING pdf icon PDF 321 KB

The application has been called in by Councillor Peter Harris

 

The proposal is for the change of use of part of an existing agricultural building into an agricultural vehicle repair workshop for agricultural vehicles, machinery and limited models of Landrover. The site is located within a larger site which is used for agricultural purposes for sheep farming.

Minutes:

Further to Minute 192 above and for the reasons stated therein, Councillor Harris had declared a Personal Interest in this matter.

 

The Committee was aware that the application had been called in by Councillor Peter Harris.

 

Officers reported that the proposal was for the change of use of part of an existing agricultural building into an agricultural vehicle repair workshop for agricultural vehicles, machinery and limited models of Land Rover vehicles. The site was located within a larger site which was used for agricultural purposes including sheep farming.

 

Members were informed that the proposal was in a rural location and would serve the surrounding agricultural community. Objections from Essex County Council Highways regarding the access from Thorpe Road and this Council’s Environmental Protection regarding noise and ventilation had been overcome and subject to conditions was considered by Officers to be acceptable.

 

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 Planning Manager (TF) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:-

 

(1) A further third party objection that had been received.

(2) Amendments to Proposed Conditions 3, 7 10 and 11.

 

Victoria Patten, a local resident, spoke in support of the application.

 

Jill Brattan, a local resident, spoke against the application.

 

Parish Councillor Ted Edwards, representing Tendring Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

A member of the Committee asked the Planning Officer to clarify that the barn was granted permission in 2018? Would officers have been likely to approve if the application initially proposed the use of a workshop?

The Planning Officer confirmed.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the building was not agricultural and therefore, would not have been recommended for approval if brought to the Committee for the proposed use in 2018.

It was also raised by a member of the Committee the definitive use of  Land Rover Defenders.

 Officers were unsure why  Land Rover Defenders in particular were specifically noted. The Planning Officer advised that a condition could be put before the Committee whereby, the vehicle was not specified.

Were the sound reduction techniques of an approved standard?

 

 

The noise impact assessment raised initial concerns when submitted. The sound reduction techniques were in accordance with requirements.

There was a need for storage and disposal. There was no evidence of this in the plans.

The Planning Officer advised that submissions allowed storage for disposal to be taken off site. The officer referred to Condition 6 whereby, a proposed Waste Management System must be approved by local Planning Authority. Condition 11 also stated that ‘no goods should be stacked, stored or deposited illegally’.

It was raised by a member of the Committee concerns relating to water and waste. Was there a proposal on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

197.

A.3 PLANNING APPLICATION – 20/00907/FUL – LAND REAR OF 87 TO 89 TOWER STREET, LIME STREET, BRIGHTLINGSEA pdf icon PDF 336 KB

The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Jayne Chapman, due to concern over the scale of the proposed storage building and the site’s location (remote from the host dwelling), in an area liable to flooding where historic covenants would preclude the development.

Minutes:

Members were informed that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Jayne Chapman BEM, due to her concern over the scale of the proposed storage building and the site’s location (remote from the host dwelling), in an area liable to flooding where historic covenants would preclude the development.

 

The Committee was informed that the proposal was situated in an edge-of-settlement location, divorced from the applicant’s flatted dwelling in Brightlingsea. Nevertheless, development plan policy would not have precluded the proposal in principle and it would not have materially harmed the character or appearance of the area, or wider landscape. There was a recreational functional need for the development to be located in this location and the proposal was compatible with adjoining land uses. Members were reminded that the site was not at risk of flooding and the proposal would not harm the residential amenity of neighbours, having particular regard to privacy and outlook, noise and disturbance. There would have been no harm to sites protected for their biodiversity importance, and there was no objection from the Local Highway Authority.

 

Subject to conditions, in the opinion of Officers the proposal would have therefore complied with the requirements of the development plan and material considerations did not contradict that.

 

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 Planning Manager (TF) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting to advise that Ward Councillor Jayne Chapman BEM had emailed Officers to comment that Brightlingsea Town Council had no objection to the use of the land as a garden, but were concerned about the size of the outbuilding and questioned why anyone would want an area of outdoor amenity space remote from a dwelling.

 

Also, that the Town Council was concerned over the potential for a residential use of the storage building in the future. The area was outside of the Settlement Development Boundary and was liable to flooding. Restrictions had been placed during the winter months on approved commercial uses [uses for commercial storage of boats and caravans]. Application TEN/1658/88 for open storage of boats, trailers and associated equipment had been refused planning permission on 27 September 1988 (east of Lime Street at the rear of the Masonic Hall).

 

Councillor Chapman BEM, a local Ward Member who had “called in” the application, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

A member of the Committee referred to the Ward Member’s concern for use.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the landscape was an improvement for the site, the use with condition 2 could be monitored.

Why was it necessary for 2 water tanks?

It is not clear for the reasons of 2 tanks, they will be placed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

198.

A.4 PLANNING APPLICATION – 21/01270/FUL – TESCO EXPRESS 32 - 34 HIGH STREET, MANNINGTREE CO11 1AJ pdf icon PDF 414 KB

The application is referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Giancarlo Guglielmi on grounds of the negative impact on the street scene and the Manningtree and Mistley Conservation Area with the incongruous gas cooler sited inappropriately imparting a constant noise by its humming which not only is impacting on neighbours’ amenity, but also on their quality of life.

 

The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the CO2 gas cooler and as part of the application a timber enclosure is proposed.

Minutes:

The Committee was informed that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Giancarlo Guglielmi on grounds of “the negative impact on the street scene and the Manningtree and Mistley Conservation Area with the incongruous gas cooler sited inappropriately imparting a constant noise by its humming which not only impacted on neighbours’ amenity, but also on their quality of life.”

 

It was reported that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the CO2 gas cooler and as part of the application a timber enclosure was proposed.

 

Officers stated that it was regrettable that the CO2 gas cooler had already been installed prior to a grant of planning permission, however the application presented a development that was deemed to be acceptable in terms of design, visual impact and heritage considerations and so was recommended by Officers for approval subject to the necessary conditions set out in the Officer’s report.

 

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 Planning Officer (SC-E) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting to advise that the applicant’s (Tesco) Project Team had confirmed that they had reviewed all the available locations and based on the proximity to all resident properties, they had advised the current location would have been most suitable as to cause minimum impact from the noise and visual aspect. Post which, noise assessment had been carried out to validate the suitability of this location and required mitigation had been proposed.

 

Mrs Mandy Rose, a local resident, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor G Guglielmi, a local Ward Member who had “called–in” the application, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Coley, a local Ward Member, also spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

It was raised by a member of the Committee that an application was previously refused. Was there alternative solutions available to the applicant? Was the impact on the surrounding areas highlighted?

The Planning Officer confirmed that two previous applications were submitted and refused based on the impact on neighbours and the lack of details around the necessity. Members were reminded that no objections had been raised for this application.

Was there still an impact on the neighbours?

The Planning Officer advised that a noise assessment, according to the British Standard had been carried out. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the assessment took readings from the closest residential dwellings.

At what point was the assessment carried out?

The Planning Solicitor confirmed that the assessment had been carried out between the hours of 7:30pm and 12:00am.

A member of the Committee referred to the preservation or enhancement of the conservation area.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that no objections had been raised with regards to the conservation perspective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

199.

A.5 PLANNING APPLICATION – 21/01527/FUL – 152 CONNAUGHT AVENUE, FRINTON ON SEA CO13 9AD pdf icon PDF 391 KB

Councillor Nick Turner has called in the application, in relation to the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area.

 

The proposal is for a disabled access ramp to be located at the front entrance to the pharmacy. The site is located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Frinton-on-Sea and also sits within the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area.

Minutes:

Further to Minute 192 above and for the reasons stated therein Councillor Bray left the meeting at this juncture and did not return before the meeting had ended.

 

It was reported that Councillor Turner had “called-in” the application, in relation to the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area.

 

The Committee was reminded that the proposal was for a disabled access ramp to be located at the front entrance to the Pharmacy. The site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Frinton-on-Sea and also sat within the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area.

 

Members were informed that the proposal was considered by Officers to be of a size, scale and design in keeping with the overall site and surrounding area. There were no concerns raised regarding the impact on the neighbouring residential properties and subject to conditions it was considered acceptable.

 

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 Planning Officer (SC-E) in respect of the application.

 

Councillor Turner, a local Ward Member who had “called–in” the application, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

A member of the Committee raised concerns regarding the handrail and requested that this be a condition.

The Planning Officer advised that it would be permissible to condition a handrail however, it would compromise the findings of ECC Heritage.

A member of the Committee referred to condition 3 regarding ground works. It was requested than further more detailed plans be provided.

 

It was requested by a Member that a condition be recommended for a handrail to be included in the application contrary to ECC Heritage findings.

The Assistant Director for Planning proposed deferring the application on the grounds of including details for a handrail.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred for the following reasons:

 

-       To give further consideration to the design of the access ramp and in particular the need for a safety rail. Consideration should be given to discussing re-design with Town Council and ECC Heritage. Revised plans should be more detailed to confirm external finishes.