Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Everett (with Councillor Bray substituting), McWilliams (with no substitution) and Sudra (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 16 April 2024.

It was moved by Councillor Wiggins, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 16 April 2024, be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members on this occasion.

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.

Proposed creation of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with perimeter fencing, acoustic fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, an access footpath and associated bund.

This application was called-in by Councillor Nick Turner, who has raised concerns that the development would result in a negative impact on the street scene, and is of a poor layout and would result in a negative impact to neighbours.

The Committee was informed that the proposal now before it was for the erection of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) on land that formed part of the existing playing pitch within the grounds of Tendring Technology College. This application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in request by Councillor Turner, who had raised his concerns that the development would result in a negative impact on the street scene, was of a poor layout and would result in a negative impact to neighbours.

Officers felt that the proposal would generate a high level of public benefits, notably through the inclusion of modern fit for purpose facilities that could be utilised all year round. Sport England offered strong support despite the part loss of an existing playing pitch, and Officers were not aware of an alternative location better suited for the proposed development, whilst equally noting that the Playing Pitch Strategy highlighted that there was both a current and future shortfall of youth 11v11 and 9v9 football pitches. A strong level of weight in the overall balance had therefore been given by Officers to the public benefits the scheme would provide.

Furthermore, the proposed development was not considered by Officers to result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the wider area; there was sufficient parking provision and ECC Highways had offered no objections subject to conditions. Similarly, ECC Ecology had not objected to the proposal subject to conditions, and whilst ECC SuDS had initially objected, this had been on more technical matters which had since been addressed.

Members were made aware that, the above notwithstanding, in terms of the impact to neighbouring amenities, whilst from a purely technical perspective the change in noise level was considered to be acceptable due to the absolute noise levels being within the WHO guidelines and the suggested mitigation measures proposed, Officers had equally acknowledged that there would be, inevitably, a degree of noise disturbance given the relatively close proximity of the development to neighbouring properties. Amendments to reduce the operating hours and re-locate the AGP away from neighbouring properties had helped reduce the level of harm, but Officers had still afforded weight to this harm in the overall planning balance.

Similarly, with regard to the impact of the proposed floodlights on neighbouring properties, the lighting plan provided demonstrated that the glare created would not be to an unacceptable level, with all lighting facing inwards towards the pitch. However, given the close proximity of the development to neighbours there would be a degree of visual impact to neighbours, if not from the glare of the floodlights but from the light spillage generated. Officers had afforded this level of harm a low level of weight in the overall planning balance.

The Committee was advised that, taking all of the detailed considerations above into consideration, Officers had concluded that, on this occasion, there were strong wider public benefits of the proposed development that outweighed the identified harm and with careful assessment the planning application had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Temporary use of Bathside Bay container terminal permitted under planning permission 10/00202/FUL dated 14 February 2013 as varied by permission 21/01810/VOC dated March 2022 (BBCT Permission) for wind turbine storage, staging, marshalling and assembly including the import and export, handling and deployment of concrete substructures, moorings, anchors and array cables and other related offshore green energy paraphernalia followed by decommissioning to enable continuation of container terminal use under the BBCT Permission.

The Committee was made aware that the proposal now before it sought permission for the temporary use of the Bathside Bay Container Terminal (BBCT) platform, established under the BBCT permission, as a "Green Energy Hub" (GEH). The GEH was designed and clearly intended to increase, for a temporary period of 15 years, port capabilities to accommodate the rapidly growing offshore energy sector, aligning with the Government's ambitions of installing 50 Giga Watt of offshore wind generating capacity by 2030. Moreover, the proposed GEH would facilitate activities such as wind turbine storage, assembly, and servicing for a temporary period of up to 15 years.

Officers felt that this temporary repurposing allowed for the beneficial use of the BBCT development before the full capacity of the BBCT was required, which was projected to be between 2034 and 2042. Additionally, the proposal would contribute extensively to the advancement of Freeport East, playing a key role in establishing Bathside Bay as a key component of Freeport East's development, in accordance with relevant local and central government objectives for the region.

Insofar as the principle of development was concerned, for the most part, the Local Plan was silent on offshore proposals for storage and distribution facilities for the off shore renewable energy sector, however this proposal was for a temporary change of use to take place on already approved infrastructure (the container terminal platform for the BBCT development). Having regard to the above, the NPPF, in paragraphs 157, 160 and 163 offered very strong support for proposals involving renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.  Local Plan policy PPL10 stated that proposals for renewable energy schemes would be considered having regard to their scale, impact (including cumulative impact) and the amount of energy, which was to be generated.

Members were informed that the development had been purposefully designed to ensure its compatibility with the ongoing use of the platform for BBCT, without slowing or impacting its progression. The activities associated with this GEH had been designed to be entirely reversible and the Applicant had demonstrated that carrying out the works required for the platform to operate as a temporary GEH would not prohibit the BBCT development from being fully completed after the GEH use ceased operation. In the event that planning permission was granted and upon cessation of the use, the site would be restored to its original state and details around those requirements could be secured by condition stipulating the removal and reinstatement of the site in accordance with an approved decommissioning strategy, overseen by the local planning authority.

It was reported that Officers and Essex County Council’s ecology department considered that the proposal would not result in significant adverse effects on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site.

The Committee was advised that all other material planning considerations, including statutory and third-party concerns had been adequately addressed through the submission of further information, and where relevant, would be covered in the forthcoming submission of further information as required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Live Information was taken on 17^th April 2024. 

To report the following areas:-

-        number of complaints received/registered in the quarter;

-        number of cases closed in the quarter;

-        number of acknowledgements within 3 working days;

-        number of harm assessment completions within 20 days of complaint receipt;

-        number of site visits within the 20 day complaint receipt period;

-        number of update letters provided on/by day 21;

-        number of live cases presented by category, electoral ward and time period since receipt; and

-        enforcement-related appeal decisions.

The Committee had before it the latest planning enforcement update based on live Information taken on 17th April 2024.

Members were aware that the enforcement policy sought to report the following areas:-

-    number of complaints received/registered in the quarter;

-    number of cases closed in the quarter;

-    number of acknowledgements within 3 working days

-    number of harm assessment completions within 20 days of complaint receipt.

-    number of site visits within the 20 day complaint receipt period.

-    number of update letters provided on/by day 21

-    number of live cases presented by category, electoral ward and time period since receipt;

-    enforcement-related appeal decisions.

Members noted that some areas continued not to be available given the resource to export information from the available system, or as addressed directly in the report.  Replacement of Microsoft Access as the main reporting tool was being explored, but transfer of the entire database across to a cloud based server this year and an upgrade of the Uniform system had delayed such efforts.

RESOLVED that the contents of this report (A.3) be noted.

Live Information was taken on 17^th April 2024 for the period 1^st April 2023 to 1^st April 2024. 

This report for planning appeals focuses on appeal decisions against planning permission decisions, tree works decisions and planning enforcement notice appeals.  In total for the period covered there has been 68 planning appeals.

The Committee had before it the annual update on planning appeals based on live Information taken on 17th April 2024 for the period 1st April 2023 to 1st April 2024.

This report for planning appeals focused on appeal decisions against planning permission decisions, tree decisions and planning enforcement notice appeals.  In total, for the period covered there had been 68 planning appeals with details as follows:-

Development Management Appeals (Total 65)

Allowed: 14

Dismissed: 46

Split: 1

Turned away by PINNS without decision: 2

Withdrawn by applicant: 2

Enforcement Appeals (Total 3)

Dismissed: 1

Split: 1

Withdrawn: 1

Notes:-

Allowed: The applicant won the appeal against the Council

Dismissed: The applicant did not win the appeal against the Council

Split: Part of the appeal proposal was successful and part was not. 

Withdrawn / Turned away: Not determined as appeals. 

RESOLVED that the contents of this report (A.4) be noted.