Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Casey and Placey with no substitutes.

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

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Baker and RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 23 November 2021 be approved as a correct record subject to amending Minute 169 so that, under the record of public speaking, Councillor G V Guglielmi  be now recorded as having spoken ‘in favour’ of application A.1 21/00650/OUT – LAND EAST OF BROMLEY ROAD LAWFORD CO11 2HS.

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 Fowler declared a personal interest in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE FRATING ROAD GREAT BROMLEY COLCHESTER ESSEX as the applicant was known to her. She stated that she had not attended the site visit and that she would not participate in the Committee's deliberations and decision making on this application.

Councillors Scott and Wiggins, who were present in the public gallery, each declared a personal interest in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE, FRATING ROAD, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER due to being the Ward Members.

Councillor McWilliams, who was also present in the public gallery, declared a personal interest in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE, FRATING ROAD, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER due to being the adjacent Ward Member.

Before the meeting, an update sheet had been distributed to the Committee with details of an  update in respect of the Planning Inspectors’ final report on the legal compliance and soundness of Section 2 of the emerging Local Plan.

The Acting Director (Planning)  summarised the status of the Local Plan and advised that the report had confirmed that, with the inclusion of a number of ‘Main Modifications’ (which had already been the subject of formal public consultation), the Plan was legally compliant and sound and could now proceed for adoption.

The Chairman advised the Committee and the public gallery that agenda item 6 would be taken first, followed by items 5, 7, 8 and 9.

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.

Crossways Centre is located within Frating which is a ‘Smaller Rural Village’. Access would not be via the primary highway network. Instead, it would be from the B1029 Frating Road. The site is not a protected or allocated employment site and the proposal is for a B8 storage and distribution use. The site is located outside of the settlement development boundary.

The proposal is for a warehouse extension (approximately 762m2 in footprint, measured externally), and loading bay extension (approximately 464m2 in footprint, measured externally), and extension of the site’s service yard area onto adjacent agricultural land.

Councillor Fowler reminded the Committee that she earlier declared a personal interest in PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE FRATING ROAD GREAT BROMLEY COLCHESTER ESSEX as the applicant was known to her and that she would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

Councillors Scott and Wiggins had earlier in the meeting, declared  personal interests in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE, FRATING ROAD, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER due to being the Ward Members.

Councillor McWilliams had also earlier declared a personal interest in A.2 PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00186/FUL – CROSSWAYS CENTRE, FRATING ROAD, GREAT BROMLEY, COLCHESTER due to being the adjacent Ward Member.

It was reported that the Crossways Centre was located in the vicinity of Frating which was a ‘Smaller Rural Village’.  The site was not a protected or allocated employment site and the proposal was for a B8 storage and distribution use. The site was located outside of the settlement development boundary.

The Committee was informed that the proposal was for a warehouse extension (approximately 762m2 in footprint, measured externally), and loading bay extension (approximately 464m2 in footprint, measured externally), and extension of the site’s service yard area onto adjacent agricultural land.

Members were made aware that the proposal did not meet the criteria for being an acceptable location for an expanded B8 storage and distribution use, and that the proposal by Officers was considered to result in unacceptable highway safety impacts. Although it would not harm the landscape character, it was considered also that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would also harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.

Whilst the economic benefits of approving the scheme were acknowledged, they were not considered by Officers to outweigh the identified harms. The proposal was considered to be contrary to the development plan, and refusal of planning permission was therefore recommended.

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 Planning Officer (DC) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of a letter from the occupants of Junedene to confirm that they had no objection and a further letter of objection received raising concerns which had already been summarised within the Officer report.

 Gary Rowe, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

John Bartington, Chairman of Residents against Crossways Expansion, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Fred Nicholls, representing Great Bromley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Lynda McWilliams, the adjacent Ward Member for The Bentleys and Frating Ward, spoke against the application.

Councillor Gary Scott, a Ward Member, spoke against the application.

This application is referred to Planning Committee at the request of the previous Planning Committee who when the outline consent was given resolution to granted requested that all reserved matters applications are determined by Planning Committee. Cllr Turner has also requested that the application be ‘called in’ to Planning Committee.

The current application seeks approval of the reserved matters relating to outline planning permission 16/00031/OUT which granted planning permission for the erection of up to 210 dwellings with access from Elm Tree Avenue, including green infrastructure, children’s play areas, school drop off and parking facility and other related infrastructure. This application includes details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale which were not included as part of the outline. Details of the access have been approved as part of the outline consent.

It was reported that this application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with its previous request that all reserved matters applications for this site were to be determined by the Planning Committee.  Councillor Turner had also requested that this application be ‘called in’ to the Committee.

The Committee was reminded that the current application sought approval of the reserved matters relating to outline planning permission 16/00031/OUT which had granted planning permission for the erection of up to 210 dwellings with access from Elm Tree Avenue, including green infrastructure, children’s play areas, school drop off and parking facility and other related infrastructure. This application included details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale which had not been included as part of the outline. Details of the access had been approved as part of the outline consent.

Members were also reminded that, as established through the granting of outline application 16/00031/OUT the principle of residential development for up to 210 dwellings on this site was acceptable.

In the opinion of the Officers, the detailed design, layout, landscaping and scale were considered acceptable. The proposal would result in no material harm to residential amenity or highway safety.

The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to a legal agreement to secure the necessary financial contribution towards RAMS.

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 subject to a legal agreement under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with the following details:

(1)                Paragraph 6.7 of the Officers Report stated that the proposal included 18 gifted affordable properties, this was not correct.  The affordable housing requirement was set out in the Section 106 Agreement linked to the outline consent, but was not to be agreed as part of this application.  This matter would be dealt with when discharging the obligations of the Section 106 Agreement.

(2)                Revised plans submitted showing that all plots had garden sizes in accordance with Policy HG9 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2007.

Sam Kazman, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Town Councillor Nick Turner, representing Frinton and Walton Town Council, spoke againstthe application.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee by the Ward Councillor for Thorpe Le Soken for the following reasons:

Negative impact on urban design/street scene

Highways impact and/or other traffic issues

Negative Impact on neighbours

This application seeks to alter the wording of Conditions 3, 5, and 6 (occupation conditions) of planning application 21/00028/FUL. The development proposed under application 21/00028/FUL was for the erection of 4 holiday caravans and this was permitted in August 2021.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Ward Councillor for Thorpe-Le-Soken (Councillor Land) for the following reasons:

·         Negative impact on urban design/street scene

·         Highways impact and/or other traffic issues

·         Negative Impact on neighbours

The Committee was informed that this application sought to alter the wording of Conditions 3, 5, and 6 (occupation conditions) of planning application 21/00028/FUL. The development proposed under application 21/00028/FUL was for the erection of 4 holiday caravans and this had been permitted in August 2021.

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.

Harriet Vincett-Wilson, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Martyn Cooper, representing Thorpe Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Dan Land, the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

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

The application involves the display of four non-illuminated artistic-impressions of the proposed re-development of the site, as approved under application 21/01145/FUL.

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

The Committee was made aware that the application involved the display of four non-illuminated artistic-impressions of the proposed re-development of the site, as approved under application 21/01145/FUL.

Members were informed that the site was within the Dovercourt Conservation Area and an area subject to regeneration. The principle of development was acceptable subject to the detailed consideration below.

The proposal would not result in any material harm to amenity or 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.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Baker and RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant advertisement consent, subject to the following conditions and informatives:-

Conditions and Reasons:

1 All advertisement consents are subject to five standard conditions specified in Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 which are as follows: -

1. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

2. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to:

(a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military);

(b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

(c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

3. Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

4. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

5. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

Additionally all advertisement consents are for a fixed term of 5 years unless this period is varied on the formal decision notice.

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, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Highway Authority reserves the right under Section 152 of the Highways Act, 1980 to remove or alter any sign overhanging or adjacent to the highway which is considered to be an obstruction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.