Agenda and minutes

The Chairman advised the Committee and members of the public present that Agenda Items 1 - 4 and 8 would be taken first on the agenda followed by Items 5, 6 and 7.

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Fowler, with no substitute.

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 Baker declared a personal interest in A.5 Planning Application 21/01748/FUL – KINGSCLIFF HOTEL, 55 KINGS PARADE, HOLLAND ON SEA, CLACTON ON SEA CO15 5JB due to his having “called-in”  the application. He informed the Committee that he was not pre-determined but further stated that he would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and would take no part in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

Councillor Bray declared a personal interest in Planning Applications A.3 21/02064/FUL (PLOT 4), A.2 21/02099/FUL (PLOT 5) and A.4 21/01856/FUL (PLOT 6) – LAND REAR OF HOLLY LODGE, BETTS GREEN ROAD, LITTLE CLACTON, due to his being the Ward Member and that he had “called-in” the applications. He informed the Committee that he was not pre-determined but further stated that he would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and would take no part in the Committee’s deliberations on this 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.

The application has been called in by Councillor Lynda McWilliams.

The proposal is for the erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. The site is located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Great Bentley and formed part of the red line area of the original Admirals Farm development to the east of the site that currently has approval for 59 dwellings. The land was allocated as ‘landscaping’ not designated Public Open Space within the original plans for the Admirals Farm development. The Children’s Playground has been moved to the field opposite the host site. As such, it is considered there is not an in principle objection to using this site as an area for housing provision sustainably within the District.

Members were reminded that the application had been “called in” by Councillor Lynda McWilliams, the local Ward Member.  Her reasons included that, in her opinion, the development would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area, and there were concerns regarding the increase in traffic within the village with the subsequent impact on pedestrian safety in the area. In addition, Councillor McWilliams felt that there would be a negative impact on neighbours in terms of a loss of residential amenity, via overlooking and the development would add to increased pressure on local services. Finally, as this was not an allocated site for housing considered that this land should not have been used for such a purpose when there was a positive housing supply within the District.

It was reported that the proposal was for the erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. The site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Great Bentley and formed part of the red line area of the original Admirals Farm development to the east of the site that currently had approval for 59 dwellings. The land had been allocated as ‘landscaping’ and not designated Public Open Space within the original plans for the Admirals Farm development. The proposed Children’s Playground had been moved to the field opposite the host site. As such, it was considered by Officers that there was not an, in principle, objection to using this site as an area for housing provision sustainably within the District.

Members were also reminded that the proposal was considered by Officers to be of a size, scale and design in keeping with the overall grain of residential development in the surrounding area. There were no concerns raised regarding the amenity impact on the neighbouring residential properties and subject to conditions it was considered to be acceptable in regards to Highways, Parking, Landscaping and Appearance.

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 Officer (NW) in respect of the application.

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

(1)  An additional condition, in accordance with Environmental Protection’s original advice as detailed within the committee report, was recommended.

(2)  Further to the existing legal requirements, a linking obligation was required to ensure that prior to any occupation of any new dwelling approved the LEAP (approved via 21/00739/FUL) to the north of the host site was completed in full and that provision was made for its future management and maintenance as public open space land.

(3)  To ensure the health of the existing hedge to the south and east of the host site, the proposed fence within the development should be a minimum distance of 0.5 from the existing hedge. To that affect, condition 4 was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Baker due to the fact that the building is out of character and does not improve the street scene, it is poorly designed and has a negative impact on the street scene, it is not in accordance with emerging Plan (Part 2) Policy SPL3 or PP2 and the negative impact upon neighbours.

This application seeks planning permission for the retention of the constructed dining pod.

Earlier in the meeting, Councillor Baker, had , for the reasons therein stated, declared a personal interest in A.5 Planning Application 21/01748/FUL – KINGSCLIFF HOTEL, 55 KINGS PARADE, HOLLAND ON SEA, CLACTON ON SEA CO15 5JB.

Members were made aware that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Baker due to the fact that, in his opinion, the building was out of character and did not improve the street scene; it was poorly designed and had a negative impact on the street scene; it was not in accordance with emerging Plan (Part 2) Policy SPL3 or PP2; and the negative impact upon neighbours.

It was reported that this application sought planning permission for the retention of the constructed dining pod. Other matters reported included:-

·         The application site was located within the settlement development boundary of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033.

·         Local Plan Policy PP8 stated that to attract visitors to the Tendring District and support economic growth in tourism, the Council would generally support proposals that would help to improve the tourism appeal of the District to visitors.

·         A condition had been proposed by Officers in regards to lighting and to restrict the use of music within the pod.

·         The dining pod was considered by Officers to be acceptable in terms of its design and appearance and it was considered that it would not cause any material impact upon neighbouring 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 Officer (NH) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an amendment to condition 3 as follows:

‘Music shall not be played within the dining pod between the hours of 11.30pm and 9am Monday to Saturday, or between the hours of 11.00pm and 9am on Sundays.

Reason – To protect the amenity of the nearby residential dwellings.’

Councillor Baker, who had called-in the application, spoke against the application, following which he withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated on this application.

This application is before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, together with applications for Plot 4 (reference 21/02064/FUL) and Plot 6 (reference 21/01856/FUL).

The application relates to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters, were approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent was approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

Earlier in the meeting, Councillor Bray had, for the reasons stated therein, declared a personal interest in A.2 Planning Application 21/02099/FUL PLOT 5 – LAND REAR OF HOLLY LODGE, BETTS GREEN ROAD, LITTLE CLACTON, CO16 9NH

The Committee was reminded that this application was before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, the local Ward Member.

The Committee was made aware that the application related to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters, had been approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent had been approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

It was reported that the application now before the Committee sought full planning permission for the erection of a chalet style 1.5 storey dwelling, varying the height, design and layout of the previously approved bungalow on Plot 5. The proposed dwelling would have an eaves height of 4 metres (previously 2.4 metres) and an overall ridge height of 7.41 metres (previously 5.3 metres). Plot 5 was located to the north-west corner of the wider site, away from existing neighbouring dwellings fronting Harwich Road.

Members were also reminded that Councillor Bray had referred the application to the Planning Committee due to his concerns with: street scene impact and harm to the character of the area from the increased height of the dwelling; the increased size and height leading to a cramped appearance; harm to neighbouring amenities; and the potential to cause greater strain on the ‘unmade’ Betts Green Road from the enlarged dwelling(s).

Members were informed that Betts Green Road and Harwich Road comprised a variety of single, 1.5 and 2 storey dwellings. The proposal, in the opinion of Officers, would add variety to the character of the development itself. Sufficient space was retained around the dwelling and to neighbouring properties to not appear cramped or result in any material harm to residential amenities. The proposed dwelling did not increase the number of bedrooms originally approved and did not increase the parking requirements.

The Committee was made aware that, whilst there would be a clear increase in height, having carefully considered the individual merits of the application, the plot layout and distance to neighbouring dwellings, it was felt by the Officers that the revised proposal would not result in any material harm that would have justified a refusal of planning permission.

Members noted that application reference 21/00289/FUL for a similar variation to Plot 1 had been approved by officers under their delegated powers on 30th July 2021. Concerns had been raised by Councillor Bray and neighbouring residents at the time, but that application had not been referred to the Committee for determination. That application had been amended to address the concerns and had subsequently been approved in the absence of any demonstrable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

This application is before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, together with applications for Plot 5 (reference 21/02099/FUL) and Plot 6 (reference 21/01856/FUL).

The application relates to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters, were approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent was approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

Councillor Bray, had earlier in the meeting, for the reasons stated therein, declared a personal interest in A.3 Planning Applications 21/02064/FUL PLOT 4 – LAND REAR OF HOLLY LODGE, BETTS GREEN ROAD, LITTLE CLACTON, CO1 9NH.

Members were informed that this application was before Members at the request of Councillor Bray the local Ward Member.

It was reported that the application, similarly to the one that considered by the Committee, related to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters had been approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent had been approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

The application now before the Committee sought full planning permission for the erection of a chalet style 1.5 storey dwelling, varying the height, design and layout of the previously approved bungalow on Plot 4. The proposed dwelling would have an eaves height of 4 metres (previously 2.4 metres) and an overall ridge height of 7.41 metres (previously 5.3 metres) with all three rear facing first floor dormer windows to be obscure glazed (serving en-suites and a bathroom). Plot 4 was located to the south-west corner of the wider site, adjacent to 85 and 87 Harwich Road.

The Committee was aware that Councillor Bray had referred the application to Planning Committee due to his concerns with: street scene impact and harm to the character of the area from the increased height of the dwelling; the increased size and height leading to a cramped appearance; harm to neighbouring amenities; and the potential to cause greater strain on the ‘unmade’ Betts Green Road from the enlarged dwelling(s).

Members were also aware that Betts Green Road and Harwich Road comprised a variety of single, 1.5 and 2 storey dwellings and that Officers felt that this proposal would add variety to the character of the development itself. Sufficient space had been retained around the dwelling and to neighbouring properties to not appear cramped or result in any material harm to residential amenities. The proposed dwelling did not increase the number of bedrooms originally approved and did not increase the parking requirements.

Members were also aware that, whilst there  would be a clear increase in height, the Officers, having carefully considered the individual merits of the application, the plot layout and distance to neighbouring dwellings, believed that the revised proposal would not  result in any material harm that would have justified a refusal of planning permission.

Members noted once more that application reference 21/00289/FUL for a similar variation to Plot 1 had been approved by officers under delegated powers on 30th July 2021. Whilst concerns had been raised by Councillor Bray and neighbouring residents at the time, that application had not been referred to the Committee for determination. That application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

This application is before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, together with applications for Plot 4 (reference 21/02064/FUL) and Plot 5 (reference 21/02099/FUL).

The application relates to the wider development approved under planning application references 16/02108/OUT, 18/00872/DETAIL and 20/01073/DETAIL (the later DETAIL for amendments to the access only) for 8 bungalows on land to the rear of the property known as Holly Lodge, Betts Green Road, Little Clacton. The outline application, and subsequent reserved matters, were approved by officers under delegated powers. Outline consent was approved subject to a condition requiring the dwellings to be single storey only.

Councillor Bray, had earlier in the meeting, for the reasons stated therein, declared a personal interest in A.4 Planning Application 21/01856/FUL PLOT 6 – LAND REAR OF HOLLY LODGE, BETTS GREEN ROAD, LITTLE CLACTON, CO16 9NH.

Members were aware that this application was before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, the local Ward Member.

The Committee noted once more all of the background information to this application which had been previously reported to Members in the course of its deliberations of the two previous applications.

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 (SC-E) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an additional letter of objection.

Peter Le Grys, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor John Cutting, representing Little Clacton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Bray, the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris,  seconded by Councillor Codling and RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Assistant Director (Planning) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-

·         On grounds of adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings, loss of character and overdevelopment.

It was noted that the stated next meeting date for Thursday 31^st March was incorrect and that the next meeting of the Planning Committee would be held at 6pm on Wednesday 30^th March 2022 in the Committee Room, Town Hall, Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea CO15 1SE.

The meeting concluded at 21:34 pm.