Agenda and minutes

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

There were none on this occasion.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Wednesday 17 February 2021.

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Placey and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Wednesday 17 February 2021 be approved as a correct record.

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 Scott, an also present at the meeting, declared for the public record in relation to Planning Applications 20/01524/LBC & 20/01523/FUL – Alresford Hall, Ford Lane, Alresford CO7 8AY that he was a local Ward Member for that 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 none on this occasion.

Erection of 3 no. bungalows.

The Chairman of the Committee (Councillor White) reported that, in relation to the above application, Essex County Council’s (ECC) Highways Department (a statutory consultee) had submitted, very late on, a further letter of representation in which it had now amended its original recommendation of approval of the application to one of refusal on highway safety grounds.

As a result of this the Chairman informed the meeting that, reluctantly, he had had no other choice but to withdraw this application from the Agenda in order to allow all interested parties in this application the opportunity to comment and respond to ECC’s change of opinion.

The Committee noted the foregoing.

Variation of conditions 1 and 19 of approved application 14/01431/OUT to allow up to 80 residential unit occupations prior to completion of associated highway works and improvements including a new roundabout off the A120 as prescribed by condition 19.

Members recalled that the Chairman of the Planning Committee (Councillor White) had withdrawn this planning application from the Agenda for the meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2020 in order to allow a further period of time in which Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council and Harwich Town Council could submit their respective representations.

It was reported that the application site covered an area of approximately 30 hectares and was located between the A120 highway and the existing Dovercourt urban area of Harwich. The applicant proposed revisions to the extant planning permission (14/01431/OUT) under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to vary Condition 1 with a substituted phasing plan and provide revised wording to Condition 19 in order to permit the development of 80 residential dwellings ahead of the proposed new access and roundabout.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had originally sought to amend conditions 1 and 19 in order to bring forward all 297 residential dwellings ahead of the proposed new access and roundabout. Following discussions with this Council’s Officers and Essex County Council Highways Officers the application had been amended to allow a reduced amount of 80 residential units ahead of the access road and roundabout by revision of the approved phasing plan, in order to incorporate a sub-phase of phase 3 to come ahead of phases 1 and 2 for the access and roundabout.

It was noted that, at the occupation of the 80^th dwelling, all existing planning conditions and Section 106 contributions would revert back to the requirements of the original outline consent (14/01431/OUT).

Members were made aware that the site at land east of Pond Hall Farm had been allocated within the Tendring District Local Plan 2007 under Policy HAR 2 without a residential allocation. The site had also included in various iterations of the Tendring District Local Plan (2013-2033) during the draft and consultation stages with an allocation of 297 residential dwellings and a requirement for the residential units to be delivered via Stour Close. Taking into account the site was now ‘consented’ the Tendring District Local Plan (submission Draft) Part 2 referred to the site as ‘mixed use consented’ and therefore it was not necessary for the site to be considered as an allocation.

The Committee was advised that the extant outline consent was subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment with the application being accompanied by an Environmental Statement. In light of subsequent changes to environmental legislation and the time lapsed the applicant had reviewed and updated the Environmental Statement and had submitted an Environmental Statement Addendum (ESA) in order to review and mitigate any changes.

It was reported that the review to the ESA had been carried out taking into account the delivery of all 297 residential dwellings off Stour Close, and which had been prior to amending the application to restrict the number to 80 residential dwellings. The findings of that review had demonstrated that there were no severe adverse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Proposed swimming pool in the south side of the walled gardens. Proposed repair of walls, the raising of the east wall, a flight of brick steps, and the reinstatement of the original and new gates to the existing openings of the garden. (Part retrospective).

It was reported that these planning applications had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Scott on the grounds that, in his opinion, “a full archaeological investigation scheme was not undertaken, the requirement of a justification for an increase in wall height, the need for new materials to be assessed by experts in the field of historic building restoration. For example, the type of lime mortar being considered and for samples provided of bricks that are to be used in any works, and mortar samples should be taken of completed works to ensure the lime/sand/mortar mix is acceptable.”

Members were made aware that the applications sought retrospective planning permission and retrospective listed building consent for a swimming pool in the south walled gardens, repair to part of a wall that had been storm damaged and a flight of steps.

The applications also sought planning permission and listed building consent to repair and raise the east garden wall, reinstate the original and new gates to the existing openings in the garden, and build a small section of wall to infill next to the shed to be able to install a gate.

Officers acknowledged that it was regrettable that some works had been completed which had not allowed the necessary archaeological investigations to take place. However, the applications presented a development that was, in their view, acceptable in terms of design, visual impact and heritage considerations and were therefore recommended for approval subject to the necessary planning conditions.

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 Managerin respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting informing it that the applicants, through their agent, had confirmed that the spoil material from the swimming pool was available within the grounds of Alresford Hall on land that was part of the old Nursery. As the spoil was still available Officers proposed that an archaeological investigation of the material should take place which would confirm or deny if there was anything of interest and would allow the processing and recording of any finds. Should the Committee accept the Officers’ recommendation of approval it was proposed to add a further planning condition securing that archaeological investigation.

Councillor Scott, a local Ward Member, addressed the Committee on these applications.

Will Marsden, the applicant, spoke in support of the applications.

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

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

Application - 20/01523/FUL

1        The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Placement of a ground-mounted solar farm including associated infrastructure, namely inverters, transformer, a DNO substation and grid connection.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Assistant Director (Planning) due to the scale and size of the proposal.

The Committee was informed that this application proposed the placement of a ground-mounted solar farm including associated infrastructure, namely inverters, transformer, a DNO substation and grid connection. The farm would have an export capacity of 17.6 Mega Watts (MW).

Members were aware that there was a recognised need and support for renewable energy technology through both National and Local planning policies and that this development would contribute towards the targets set for the UK’s greenhouse gas emission reduction and increasing the country’s energy supply from renewable sources.

The Committee was advised that the assessment of a renewable energy proposal required the impacts to be considered in the        context of the strong, in principle, policy support given the Government’s conclusion that there was a pressing need to deliver renewable energy generation. In this case, there was felt to be no adverse impact on heritage assets, ecology, residential amenity, highway safety or flood risk. There was also an opportunity to improve biodiversity.

The landscape impact was considered by Officers to be relatively local, contained mainly to the adjacent A120, Bowl Road and the Public Right of Way that crossed the site. This impact however was considered to be of moderate harm. The landscape mitigation would soften the impact but would not eliminate it. However, the localised impact on the area was not considered by Officers to be sufficient to recommend refusal especially given the lack of harm in other respects and the benefits to biodiversity and the long term benefits to the landscape when the site was decommissioned by the planting mitigation retained. Therefore, although Officers had found moderate harm to the countryside, the localised extent of harm did not outweigh the national benefits derived from providing renewable energy.

Officers felt therefore that the proposal could be considered to be in accordance with saved policies EN1 and EN4 and emerging policy PPL 3 and represented an appropriate form of development in the countryside. Therefore, the principle of the development in this location was considered acceptable.

In addition, the application was supported by saved policy EN13A and emerging policy PPL10 which advocated for new proposals for renewable energy developments in the District. The energy generated by the proposed development would contribute to supporting growth in the region, and        the carbon emissions saved as a result of generating electricity from a renewable source, would help to tackle climate change and minimise resource use.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, any written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

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

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an additional letter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.