Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Emma Haward Email:  democraticservices@tendringdc.gov.uk or telephone  01255686007

Items
No. Item

132.

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 Joanne Fisher (Planning Solicitor).

 

133.

Minutes of the Last Meeting pdf icon PDF 325 KB

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

Minutes:

It was moved by Councillor Bray,  seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 6 July 2021 be approved as a correct record.

 

134.

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:

All Members of the Committee declared  for the public record that in relation to Planning Application 20/00547/OUT Hamilton Lodge, Parsons Hill, Great Bromley, Colchester CO7 7JB   they had been ‘lobbied’ by the applicant’s agent.

 

Councillor Codling also declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20/00809/FUL 102 Nayland Drive, Clacton-on-Sea CO16 8TZ due to being a Ward Member. He stated that he was not pre-determined and that therefore he would participate in the determination of that application.

 

Councillor  Scott, who was present in the public gallery, declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20/00547/OUT 20/00547/OUT Hamilton Lodge, Parsons Hill, Great Bromley, Colchester CO7 7JB due to his being  a Ward Member.

 

135.

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.

136.

A.1 PLANNING APPLICATION 20/00547/OUT – HAMILTON LODGE, PARSONS HILL, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER CO7 7JB pdf icon PDF 602 KB

Hamilton Lodge is located south of, and well detached from, the village of Great Bromley and virtually immediately north of the A120, approximately 8 miles east of Colchester. It comprises 16 acres of buildings, hardstanding, grassland and parkland around an early 20th Century house and more recently constructed care home/assisted living accommodation.

 

The site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary in both the saved Tendring District Local Plan (2007) and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting all Members of the Committee had declared that they had been ‘lobbied’ by the applicant’s agent in relation to this application.

 

Earlier on in the meeting Councillor Scott, present in the public gallery had also declared a personal interest in this application due to being a Ward Member.

 

It was reported that Hamilton Lodge was located south of, and well detached from, the village of Great Bromley and was immediately north of the A120, approximately 8 miles east of Colchester. It comprised of 16 acres of buildings, hardstanding, grassland and parkland around an early 20th Century house and more recently constructed care home/assisted living accommodation. The site was located outside of any defined settlement boundary in both the saved Tendring District Local Plan (2007) and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft.

 

The Committee was informed that this application sought planning permission for 79 residential units on the site which incorporated the renovation and conversion of Hamilton Lodge, The Stable Block and Walled Garden elements. The application had been submitted in a hybrid format (i.e. part outline/part detail application) and proposed the following:- 67 dwellings including the conversion of Hamilton Lodge, The Stable Block and Walled Garden and all associated access roads, amenity space, landscaping, parking, servicing, utilities, footpath and cycle links, on-site drainage, and infrastructure works including gas and electricity apparatus (Submitted in Outline Form); - Residential development for 12 dwellings and associated access roads including formation of new junction to Parsons Hill (Submitted in Detail Form); - Formal and informal open space including village green and meadow including landscaping, parking, servicing, utilities, footpath links (Submitted in Detail Form).

 

It  had been acknowledged by Officers that the site was brownfield in nature and had attracted a certain level of traffic movements under its former care home use, but even taking this into account, it was considered by them that the proposal for 79 dwellings in this unsustainable and unsuitable location outside of any defined settlement boundary  ran contrary to the objectives of adopted Policy SP3 and  was of a wholly inappropriate scale, in a countryside location clearly detached from the nearest settlement of Great Bromley, which  had been identified as a smaller rural settlement under emerging policy SPL1.

 

Notwithstanding the clear conflict with established housing settlement policies outlined above it had been acknowledged by Officers that the development did provide some benefits which could be weighed up against the harm identified. Those benefits included:- The re-development of a brownfield site; - The conversion and safeguarding of non-designated heritage assets present on the site; - Provision of a ‘village green’ area, to be maintained by the parish council, which would open up public access to the site; - Provision of 30% on-site affordable housing and policy compliant infrastructure contributions; - Notwithstanding the lack of a sustained and robust marketing campaign to demonstrate that the site was not in demand for alternative employment uses, the development represented a viable solution for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

137.

A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00809/FUL – 102 NAYLAND DRIVE, CLACTON ON SEA CO16 8TZ pdf icon PDF 305 KB

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant is Tendring District Council.

 

The application involves a single storey ground floor rear extension to the existing dwellinghouse at 102 Nayland Drive which is inside the settlement boundary of Clacton.

Minutes:

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant was Tendring District Council itself.

 

Members were informed that the application involved a single storey ground floor rear extension to the existing dwelling house at 102 Nayland Drive which was inside the settlement boundary of Clacton.

 

The proposal, through a number of internal alterations, sought to convert the ground floor of the property for use by someone with limited mobility. In doing this, the existing sitting room would become a bedroom with en-suite facilities and the rear extension was proposed to provide a sitting room with ramped access from the rear garden.

 

Members were informed that, in the opinion of Officers, the proposal would not result in harm to the host dwelling or wider street scene in general in regards to the siting, scale or external appearance of the development, nor any material harm to residential amenity nor highway safety.

 

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.

 

Adam Devaux, an Officer of the Council, spoke on behalf of Tendring District Council, in support of the application.

 

Matters raised by a Committee Member:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

A member of the Committee asked if the property became vacant, would it remain as Council stock?

The Planning Officer advised that this would be the case due to the design for disabled needs.

Can you confirm that there is enough amenity space after the extension?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the garden area will be reduced, however the amenity space is still sufficient.

Is there an opportunity for a wet room?

It would be designed as a wet room for that particular type of accommodation.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Bray and unanimously RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following:

 

Conditions and Reasons:

 

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

 

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan:- A2021/11/01; received 4th May 2021.

 

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

Informatives:

 

“Application Approved Without Amendment

 

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

138.

A.3 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/01028/FUL – 24 BAY VIEW CRESCENT, LITTLE OAKLEY, HARWICH CO12 5EG pdf icon PDF 326 KB

The application is before Members as an Ownership Certificate has been served on Tendring District Council as they own the freehold of the flats.

 

The proposed extension will be located to the rear of the property and will be largely shielded from the streetscene by the existing dwelling. The extension is of a single storey nature and is considered to be of a size and scale appropriate to the existing dwelling with the application site retaining adequate private amenity space. The use of matching materials will blend the development with the host dwelling and is not thought to have any significant adverse effect on visual amenity.

Minutes:

It was reported that this application was before Members as an Ownership Certificate had been served on Tendring District Council as the Council owned the freehold of the flats.

 

The Committee was advised that the proposed extension would be located to the rear of the property and would be largely shielded from the street scene by the existing dwelling. The extension was of a single storey nature and was considered by Officers to be of a size and scale appropriate to the existing dwelling with the application site retaining adequate private amenity space. The use of matching materials would blend the development with the host dwelling and was not thought to have any significant adverse effect on visual amenity.

 

Officers also felt that the proposed rear extension would not result in any significant loss of light or undue loss of privacy to the adjacent (and above) neighbouring properties and was therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenities.

 

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 Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting in relation to the following:

 

“Further discussions had been held with the applicant’s agent and it had been agreed that a further condition could be added that required that the roof lights to the proposed flat roof be obscure glazed to ensure privacy to the occupiers and the flat above.

 

Proposed additional condition:

Before the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted the proposed roof lights should be fitted with obscured glazing and should be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of the private amenities of the occupiers and the flat above.”

 

Matters raised by a Committee Member:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

A member of the Committee asked if the extension would fall within the lease of the property.

The Planning Officer confirmed that it would be controlled with the leaseholder with the consent of the freeholder.

Are residents in the flat above going to experience light pollution?

There would be some light elevations. In terms of noise, this would decrease.

Would the possibility of the flat above building an extension cause concern?

In usual circumstances, an extension cannot be built above, this would result in a legal case.

Can the Committee seek for removal of obscure roof lights?

The Planning Officer confirmed.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Bray and unanimously RESOLVED that, the  Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following:

 

-          Delegated officers agreeing with the applicant for the removal of obscure roof lights.

 

Conditions and Reasons:

 

1      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.