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

Apologies were received from Councillor Placey (with Councillor Smith substituting).

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests of Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor Wiggins declared for the public record in relation to report A.1 – Planning Application – 22/02076/FUL – LAND NORTH AND SOUTH OF A133 CLACTON ROAD AT FINCHES LANE, ELMSTEAD, CO7 7FD that she was a Ward Member. She advised the meeting that she was not pre-determined, and that therefore she would participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application.

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.

There were no such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Hybrid application consisting of the following:

Full planning permission for 86 No residential dwellings to the north of Clacton Road including new access, 40 No residential dwellings to the south of Clacton Road using existing access. Construction of market field grows use Class E/F1 to include multi use building (337sqm), reception office (200spm), workshop (222sqm), 65 space car park, ancillary landscaping and buildings.

Outline planning permission (considering Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale) for mixed use Class E commercial building (1596sqm) and 53 space public car park.

(The proposal constitutes a departure from the Development Plan).

It was reported that this application was being presented to Members because it constituted a major development proposal on an unallocated site outside the settlement development boundary of nearby Elmstead Market, and therefore it was a departure from the Development Plan. More specifically, the residential aspect of the proposal raised concerns by not aligning with the statutory, plan-led approach for future housing in the District. Additionally, the development on the north side of Clacton Road would result in the permanent loss of good quality agricultural land, as well as causing localised landscape-related issues. The application had also failed to demonstrate that the commercial (outline) element, to include Class E retail floorspace, would not have an unacceptable impact on Elmstead Market Village Centre. Those areas of harm resulted in clear conflict with the relevant policies as set out in the corresponding sections under the ‘Assessment’ heading in the Officer’s report.

Members heard that against the aforementioned harm the scheme offered substantial benefits, most notably in the provision of a much-needed combined Employment and Special Educational Needs (SEN) facility embodied in the Market Field Grows (MFG) element (use Class E/F1), featuring a Multi-Use Building incorporating a publicly accessible library, reception office and workshop areas. Furthermore, the proposal would result in substantial economic benefits, both directly and indirectly, through the provision of the MFG facility and during the construction phases of the development.

The Committee was told that there were some minor shortcomings in locational infrastructure that might discourage sustainable modes of travel, such as walking and cycling from the development site to nearby Elmstead Market and/or other strategic urban settlements such as Clacton-on-Sea and Colchester. However, robust mitigation was proposed in the form of improved footpaths along Clacton Road, a pedestrian crossing over Clacton Road and the implementation of speed restrictions, as well as other necessary environmental and landscape mitigation, all to be secured through conditions and a section 106 agreement. Those factors were considered by Officers to be neutral in the overall planning evaluation.

Officers also informed Members that other third-party representations, including those from technical consultees and members of the public had been thoroughly reviewed and integrated into the Officer’s assessment of this proposal. It was deemed by Officers that the significantly revised proposals, subject to the imposition of conditions and section 106 obligations and contributions as outlined in the Officer report, had effectively addressed all remaining technical policy concerns.

Members were finally told that ultimately, after careful consideration of the planning balance and material considerations, the significant benefits outlined and explored in the report were deemed by Officers to marginally outweigh the considerable concerns related to the failure to align with the statutory plan-led approach.  It was recognised that in planning law development should be refused that was contrary to the development plan unless material considerations dictated otherwise, and the Officer conclusion was that there was sufficient material benefit and  a positive  development overall to allow this application to be approved.

The Committee had before it the published Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.