Agenda and minutes

The Chairman informed the Committee that Councillor Bray was no longer a member of the Committee and that Councillor V E Guglielmi had replaced him.

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Placey and Wiggins, with no substitutions.

To confirm and sign as correct records, the minutes of the meetings of the Committee, held on 30 March 2022 and 12 April 2022.

It was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 March 2022 be approved as a correct record.

It was then moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Baker and RESOLVED and that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 April 2022 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 White declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.1 21/01000/FUL – ST JOHNS PLANT CENTRE, EARLS HALL DRIVE, CLACTON ON SEA, ESSEX CO16 8BP due to his being a Ward Member. He considered that he was pre-determined and that therefore, he would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and not participate in the Committees deliberations and decision-making on this application.

Councillor Fowlerdeclared a personal interest in Planning Application A.4 2/00250/FUL – LAND TO THE SOUTH WEST OF HAMMOND DRIVE RAMSEY CO12 5EJ due to being a nearby resident. She did not consider herself pre-determined but would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and not participate in the Committees deliberations and decision-making on this application.

Councillor Harris declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.2 CHINESE COTTAGE RESTAURANT, HIGH STREET, THORPE-LE-SOKEN, CLACTON-ON-SEA CO16 0DY due to his being a regular customer of the restaurant. He therefore did not participate in the Committees deliberations and decision making for this application.

Councillors Baker, Codling, Fowler and V E Guglielmi each stated for the public record that  in relation to Planning Application A.1 21/01000/FUL ST JOHNS PLANT CENTRE, EARLS HALL DRIVE CLACTON-ON-SEA CO16 8BP that they had been absent from both the site visits and the Committee meeting that had taken place on 30 March 2022 at which this application had first been considered. However, they each further stated that, having received advice from the Officers, they had attended that day the Committee’s site visit to this application site and had both read the Officer report submitted to the Committees meeting on 30 March 20022 and the audio-visual recording of that meeting. Councillors Baker, Codling, Fowler and V E Guglielmi would therefore participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

Gary Guiver, Acting Director (Planning) declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.3 22/00186/FULHH BEMERTON GARDENS, KIRBY CROSS, FRINTON-ON-SEA CO13 0LG due to his being the applicant for this application and that therefore he would leave  the meeting during the Committee’s deliberations and decision making 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.

This application was deferred by the Planning Committee on 30th March 2022. The reasons for deferral were in order to allow Essex County Council Highways Officers to attend a future meeting and Officers were instructed to request the applicant to look at their proposal against policies SP7, SPL3, LP4 and L4 and submit changes if necessary.

It has been confirmed that Officers from Essex County Council will be present at the meeting and following correspondence with the agent/applicant no changes to the scheme are proposed.

Earlier on in the meeting, as recorded under Minute 4 above, Councillor White had declared a Personal Interest in relation to this application and had stated that he was pre-determined. Councillor White accordingly vacated the Chair and withdrew from the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

In the absence of the Chairman, it was moved by Councillor Alexander,  seconded by Councillor Baker, and RESOLVED that Councillor Fowler occupy the Chair and act as Chairman of the Committee  whilst this application was being considered and determined.

Members  recalled that this application  had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 30th March 2022 in order to allow an Essex County Council Highways Officer to attend  and Officers  to request the applicant to look at their proposal against policies SP7, SPL3, LP4 and L4 and to submit changes if necessary.

It had previously been confirmed that an Officer from Essex County Council would be present at the meeting and that, following correspondence with the agent/applicant, no changes to the scheme were proposed.

The Committee was reminded that the application site comprised 7.6 hectares of horticultural land and was located approximately 300m to the western edge of Clacton-on-Sea, but was now included within the Parish of St Osyth. It was to the north of St. Johns Road (B1027), with the majority of the site being to the rear of a ribbon of residential development that fronted onto the road (even nos. 690 – 762).

It was reported that, currently, the vehicular access to the site was via Earls Hall Drive, a private road which passed along its western boundary. It was proposed to provide a footpath/cycleway within the current curtilage of 762 St Johns Road adjacent to the existing lane. In addition, the application site also included a chalet bungalow and its garden at 700 St Johns Road which it was proposed to demolish, in order to provide a new, replacement vehicular access to the site, in lieu of the Earls Hall Drive one.

Members were reminded that the site lay within the settlement development boundary for Clacton-on-Sea where there was no  objection, in principle, to residential development.

The Committee was further reminded that this application sought full planning permission for the demolition of the nursery glasshouses, buildings and structures and No. 700 St Johns Road and the redevelopment of the site with a predominately residential scheme. The proposed residential scheme comprised of: 180 Residential units comprising 10 no. 2 bed houses; 83 no. 3 bed houses; 24 no. 4 bed houses; 15 no. 5 bed houses; 16 no. 1 bed apartments; 24 no. 2 bed apartments and 8 no. live/work units (mixed commercial totalling 1064 square metres with flats above), with associated roads, open space, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

Officers were content that, subject to the imposition of reasonable planning conditions and Section 106 planning obligations, the general principle of this level of development on the site was acceptable. It was in keeping with both the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This application is before Members at the request of Councillor Land, for concerns regarding the development’s impact on urban design/street scene, highways impact and/or other traffic issues and positive/negative Impact on neighbours.

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single storey dwelling, with an attached car-port to the right hand side. The dwelling’s footprint would be a reversed L[1]shape with a rear-gable projection and a feature oversail porch roof to the front elevation. Both the main roof and that of the car-port would be gabled-ended. The eaves of the dwelling would be in the region of 2.7m and it would have a ridge of approximately 5.5m. Areas of hardstanding are proposed to the perimeter of the dwelling, along with a grassed back garden with bin-storage to the rear right hand boundary.

Councillor White returned to the meeting and re-occupied the Chair. Councillor Harris, had earlier in the meeting, declared a personal interest in this application due to his being a regular customer of the restaurant.  Councillor Harris withdrew from the meeting at this point in the proceedings whilst the Committee considered this application and reached its decision.

It was reported that this application was before Members at the request of Councillor Land, the Ward Member as he had concerns regarding the development’s potential impact on the urban design/street scene, highways impact and/or other traffic issues and impact on neighbours.

The Committee was made aware that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of a single storey dwelling, with an attached car-port to the right hand side. The dwelling’s footprint would be a reversed L-shape with a rear-gable projection and a featured over-sail porch roof to the front elevation. Both the main roof and that of the car-port would be gabled-ended. The eaves of the dwelling would be in the region of 2.7m and it would have a ridge of approximately 5.5m. Areas of hardstanding were proposed to the perimeter of the dwelling, along with a grassed back garden with bin-storage to the rear right hand boundary.

Members were made aware that the restaurant had a limited number of seats (covers) and was in a highly sustainable location in the village centre being close to a number of bars. It was accessible on foot and by public transport.

Members were reminded that the application had been listed on a previous agenda (30th March 2022 meeting) but that it had been was withdrawn in order to allow time for the agent to provide both an amended site layout and a swept path analysis (SPA). The amended site layout showed the separation distance between the customer-parking and the dwelling had increased from 6.2m to 7.3m; the increase permitted greater manoeuvrability for vehicles entering/exiting the parking spaces. The manoeuvrability of vehicles was exhibited on the SPA.

The Committee was reminded that Thorpe-Le-Soken High Street had the character of a typical village high street with a number of eating establishments, boutique shops and a small supermarket. In terms of the surroundings, the scale of development which had a direct relationship with the street scene comprised a variety of two and 1.5 storey buildings with the odd-example of very low-key 1.5 and single storey buildings. The character of the locale was evidentially of a historic core which  was demonstrated by the number of listed buildings and the conservation area designation.

It was noted that the area behind the Chinese Cottage restaurant neither enhanced nor contributed to the character of the conservation area, comprising a fairly large informal (untidy) un-marked out area for vehicles using the restaurant.

It was considered by Officers that the low-key scale of the proposal would preserve the character of the conservation area. Sufficient space had been retained around the dwelling and to neighbouring properties to not appear cramped or result in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The planning application has been referred to Planning Committee as the applicant holds a politically-sensitive post in the Council.

The application seeks planning permission to replace the existing rear conservatory with a single storey, mono-pitched extension clad externally with weatherboard; the cladding of the exterior walls for the parts above a 0.3m high brick plinth; internal alterations and the installation of air source heat pump.

The Acting Director (Planning), Gary Guiver, had earlier in the meeting, as reported under Minute 4 above declared a personal interest in this application due to his being the applicant.  He therefore withdrew from the meeting during the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

Councillor Harris returned and Councillor Baker left the meeting.

It was reported that this planning application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant held a politically-sensitive post in the Council.

Members were informed that the application sought planning permission to replace the existing rear conservatory with a single storey, mono-pitched extension clad externally with weatherboard; the cladding of the exterior walls for the parts above a 0.3m high brick plinth; internal alterations and the installation of air source heat pump.

It was reported that the area was heavily urbanised and that its layout was typical of post-war housing whereby a number of properties benefited from wide, open play areas. The dwelling was the left hand of a terrace of four dwellings and was constructed externally in a typical engineered red brick with an interlocking clay-pantile roof. The site was located within the Settlement Boundary of Frinton, Walton and Kirby Cross.

Members were made aware that the scale, design and siting of the proposed development was considered by Officers to respect existing street patterns and was sympathetic to local character. The development proposal did not generate any additional need for parking nor did it diminish the existing level of parking. Overall, it was felt that the new development would protect the amenity of existing residents with regard to loss of light, overbearing and overlooking.

In the absence of any material harm resulting from the development the application was recommend by Officers for approval.

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 detailing matters controlled under Building Control Regulations in relation to the proposed air source heat pump as noted below:-

“Planning permission is not required for an Air Source Heat Pump at the front of the property, provided it is not located at first floor level.  This is covered in paragraphs 6.14 and 6.15 of the Committee Report.

-       Building over a large shared drain is not desirable, and measures should be taken to guarantee the shared drain's future integrity.”

No questions were asked nor comments made by members of the Committee.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor V E Guglielmi, seconded by Councillor Alexander 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 planning conditions and reasons:-

Conditions and Reasons:

1 The development hereby permitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The application has been called in by Councillor Bush on the grounds that the proposal will create a negative impact on the street scene and adjacent neighbours, that it forms part of a wider piecemeal development of the site without affordable housing contributions, and that it will impact on a part disused footpath connecting Bay View Crescent to Lodge Road.

The proposal is for the construction of one dwelling, which will be of a 1.5 storey chalet bungalow design, in place of two dwellings previously approved within planning permission 20/00342/FUL.

Councillor Fowler had earlier declared a personal interest in this application, as reported under Minute 4 above, due to being a nearby resident.

Councillor Fowler withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee considered the application and reached its decision.

It was reported that this application had been called in by Councillor Bush on the grounds that, in his opinion, the proposal would create a negative impact on the street scene and adjacent neighbours, that it formed part of a wider piecemeal development of the site without affordable housing contributions, and that it would impact on a part disused footpath connecting Bay View Crescent to Lodge Road.

The Committee was informed that this proposal was for the construction of one dwelling, which would be of a 1.5 storey chalet bungalow design, in place of two dwellings previously approved within planning permission 20/00342/FUL.

Members were made aware that the dwelling, while acknowledged to be of a larger design than either of the existing bungalows previously approved or those dwellings contained within the Hammond Drive development, was not considered by Officers to represent a form of overdevelopment given that the overall footprint was broadly similar to that previously granted permission.

There were no concerns raised by Officers regarding the impact on the neighbouring residential properties and subject to conditions the development was also considered by Officers to be acceptable in regards to Highways and Parking, and its impact on trees.

It was reported that issues relating to the piecemeal development of the wider site and associated lack of affordable housing provision, were not a material consideration in relation to this particular planning application.  These issues had previously been addressed and settled within planning permission 20/00342/FUL, when it had been concluded that the wider development should not be subject to an affordable housing provision. This proposal (for one dwelling where two dwellings had been previously approved) also did not trigger an affordable housing contribution due to the small scale nature of the proposal.

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 (MP) in respect of the application.

Councillor Mike Bush, the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

The application has been called in by Councillor Paul Honeywood.

The application site is located on the eastern side of Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea, close to the junction with Pallister Road, within the main town centre. The site lies within the Settlement Development Boundary of Clacton on Sea as defined within the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033. The immediately vicinity is made up of three storey terrace buildings with a variety of commercial/retail uses at ground floor and residential flats at first and second floors.

Councillor Fowler returned to the meeting.

The Committee was informed that this application had been called in by Councillor P B Honeywood, the Ward Member.

It was reported that the application site was located on the eastern side of Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea, close to the junction with Pallister Road, within the main town centre. The site lay within the Settlement Development Boundary of Clacton-on-Sea as defined within the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033. The immediately vicinity was made up of three storey terrace buildings with a variety of commercial/retail uses at ground floor and residential flats at first and second floors.

The Committee was made aware that this development proposal consisted of a change of use from a residential flat to a six bed House of Multiple Occupation in order to provide accommodation for students (as described by the applicant) attending Tiffany Theatre College, which had relocated to Clacton and with which the applicant had strong links to.

The site was located in a highly sustainable, built up area of Clacton-on-Sea and within easy walking distance to a number of services and the college. The site was within walking distance of Clacton railway station which provided links to Colchester, London and beyond.

The Committee was made aware that the proposal was fully compliant with Policy LP11 and that there  had been no objections from ECC Highways, TDC Housing ( subject to the grant of an HMO licence) or TDC Environment Protection.

For those summarised reasons, the application was therefore recommended by Officers for approval subject to 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 Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

Melissa Wenn, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor  P B Honeywood, the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Fowler left the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

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

-       The site was in an unsuitable location for a HMO because within a 100m  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.