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

There were none.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on 12 February 2019.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on 12 February 2019, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

Councillor White declared that, with regards to Planning Application 16/00671/FUL & 16/00656/FUL, he is the Ward Councillor for this item and has declared himself as predetermined on all other applications regarding this, he would therefore withdraw from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated and reached it decision. Councillor Heaney would therefore Chair the meeting for this item only.

Councillor Heaney declared that, with regards to Planning Application 17/01229/OUT, she was not at the original site visit for this application and has not participated in any of the Committee’s deliberations on the application, she would therefore withdraw from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated and reached its decision.

Councillor Brown declared that, with regards to Planning Application 17/02162/OUT, he is predetermined on this application and would therefore withdraw from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated and reached its decision.  

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 none.

Outline application (all matters reserved except means of access) for the redevelopment (including demolition) of the site for up to 950 residential units (including affordable housing) with a new Neighbourhood Centre comprising a local healthcare facility of up to 1500sqm NIA and up to 700sqm GFA for use classes A1 (shops), A3 (food and drink) and/or D1 (community centre); a 2.1ha site for a new primary school; and associated roads, open space, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

Councillor Heaney had previously declared that, with regards to Planning Application 17/01229/OUT, she was not at the original site visit for this application and has not participated in any of the Committee’s deliberations on the application, she therefore withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated and reached its decision.

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 (GG) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1)     A letter received from Persimmon Homes confirming the applicant’s agreement to 20% affordable housing alongside the various financial contributions required as part of the s106 agreement, as well as their desire to resolve the remaining matters as quickly as possible.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Hones and RESOLVED that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to:

a) Within 6 (six) months of the date of the Committee’s resolution to approve [to be revised to ‘no later than 1st May 2019], the completion of a legal agreement under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealing with the following matters (where relevant and subject to the completion of viability testing):

·         On-site Council Housing/Affordable Housing (the quantum and tenure to be agreed by the Head of Planning following the satisfactory completion of viability testing);

·         Provision of land on-site for a new healthcare facility together with a financial contribution towards its provision. [In the event that the land is not required, the financial contribution will be spent on health facilities elsewhere (to be determined by the NHS);

·         Transfer of new open space, including proposed equipped play areas to the Council or a management company;

·         Land for a new primary school and early years and childcare facility on site with financial contributions towards the provision of those facilities;

·         Financial contributions to create additional secondary school places;

·         New neighbourhood centre; and

·         Financial contributions towards off-site ecological mitigation.

[Also the routing of bus services through the development – as advised on the 30th May 2018 update sheet]

b) Planning conditions in accordance with those set out in (i) below (but with such amendments and additions, if any, to the detailed wording thereof as the Head of Planning (or the equivalent authorised officer) in their discretion considers appropriate).

(i) Conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for submission of first reserved matters application (which can thereafter be submitted in phases to reflect the phasing of the development.

2. Standard 2 year limit for commencement of development following approval of reserved matters.

3. Details of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping (the reserved matters).

4. Layout and phasing plan/programme.

5. Compliance with approved access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Submission of business strategy in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of Part 1 to Schedule 1 of the S106 agreement dated 14th March 2018

Councillor White had previously declared that, with regards to Planning Application 16/00671/FUL & 16/00656/FUL, he is the Ward Councillor for this item and has declared himself as predetermined on all other applications regarding this, he  therefore withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated and reached it decision. Councillor Heaney therefore Chaired the meeting for this item only.

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 Head of Planning (CB) in respect of the business strategy.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1)       Updated recommendations.

(2)       A letter received from joint Chairs of the Trust confirming the business strategy has been prepared with the involvement of the Trust.

(3)       A letter from St Osyth Priory Estate Limited confirming the Sargeant family have permission to prepare and submit a business strategy on their behalf.

(4)       A letter was emailed to Councillors by Tim Sargeant outlining issues of a business and local economic nature and also providing comments on the officer’s recommendation to Committee.

(5)       A letter was emailed to all Councillors (12/03/2019) by Tim Sargeant making further comments about the content of the business strategy and the report to Planning Committee.

(6)       Appendices page numbers and Appendix 5 table reproduced as partially missing from the agenda.

Sonia Grantham, a representative for the owner St Osyth Priory Estate Limited and member of the St Osyth Priory & Parish Trust,spoke in support of the business plan submitted.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and RESOLVED that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse approval of the submitted business strategy, for the following reasons:-

1. The Business Strategy contains neither realistic nor viable proposals to secure the restoration of the Additional Listed Buildings (specified in the Section 106 Agreement) within the relevant 10 year period and therefore has not shown it can deliver on its essential aim under the Agreement.

2. This is because it is reliant upon enabling development proposals of unidentified scale and location justified by reference to a claimed Conservation Deficit of a minimum of £26M which is only partly related to the restoration of the Part 3 Buildings. Further, the scale of enabling development and / or public subsidy inherent in this approach appears out of proportion to the public benefits secured and would be unlikely ever to be sanctioned. It is therefore an approach which is neither realistic nor viable in practice.

The Council’s proposed alternative strategy:

3. As has been consistently maintained by the Council in meetings throughout 2018, the approach of this submitted Business Plan should be discarded in favour of a pragmatic, bespoke Business Plan which excises all references to estate-wide Conservation Deficits and focuses on grants, loans or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Storage shed to the rear of the kiosk and a ramp.

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 Head of Planning (CB) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1)     One letter of objection received from the Councils Head of Public Realm.

Danny Partridge, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Hones, seconded by Councillor Bennison, to approve the application as per Officer recommendation.

However, when put to the vote the proposal to approve as per Officer recommendation was lost.

After further discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Everett, seconded by Councillor Heaney, to defer the application to allow discussion between Officers and the applicant on a more sympathetic design.

However, after further discussion this proposal was then withdrawn.

After further discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and RESOLVED, that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following conditions:

1.    3 year time limit

2.    Approved plans

3.    Details of design and finish of railings and finish and detailing of kiosk extension.

The Committee is asked to consider the following resolution:

“That under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 9 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.”

It was moved by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Hones and:-

RESOLVED that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Items 15 and 16 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act, the relevant paragraph being paragraph 5.

Outline planning application with all matters reserved, except for access, for 280 dwellings, a 2 Form of Entry primary school, 56 place early years nursery, up to 3000 sqm of office (B1) buildings on 1 hectare and associated ancillary buildings, drainage systems, boundary treatments and hard surfacing as well as public open space, vehicular access from Thorpe Road a pedestrian footbridge and the closure of existing level crossing and formal diversion of public footpath No 5 - Weeley, over the new railway bridge.

The Committee had before it the Officer report containing privileged legal advice provided by Counsel, in respect of the forthcoming planning appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning permission 17/02162/OUT and other current planning appeals within the District. The Committee made a decision on matters relating to the appeal.