Agenda and minutes

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Harris (with Councillor Turner substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 7^th June 2022.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 7 June 2022, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of Councillor Allen in the attendance list.

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.

Councillors Baker, Fowler and White all declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5, 21/01523/FUL - Land Adjacent Cliphedge Farm, Harwich Road, Little Bentley, as they had all sat on the Committee for the determination of the original application. They all stated that they were not pre-determined in relation to 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 District of Tendring and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

There were none on this occasion.

The application is before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor McWilliams due to concerns with the highway safety impacts, the increase in size of the development to that previously approved, and the impacts to neighbouring amenities.

The proposal is for the construction of six buildings for Class E use (including offices, financial, professional and medical services) which will amount to 3,016sqm of floorspace, including a new vehicular access off Harwich Road and ancillary works including landscaping and parking provision.

The Committee heard how this application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor McWilliams due to her concerns with the highway safety impacts, the increase in size of the development to that previously approved, and the impacts to neighbouring amenities. The proposal was for the construction of six buildings for Class E use (including offices, financial, professional and medical services) which would amount to 3,016sqm of floor space that included a new vehicular access off Harwich Road and ancillary works which included landscaping and parking provision.

Members recalled that under relevant appeal decision APP/P1560/W/19/3226387 (dated 26th May 2020), planning permission had previously been granted on this site for the development of two buildings for office uses measuring 1,687sqm of floor space, which also included a new vehicular access off Harwich Road and ancillary parking and landscaping. This permission remained extant and was a material consideration in the determination of this application.

The Committee had been informed that in respect of the development proposal the subject of this report, Officers were content that the buildings were of a suitable design for this rural location and did not consider there to be significant harm to the amenities of any neighbouring residents. Essex Highways Authority had raised no objections, and the parking being provided was in accordance with the Essex Car Parking Standards. There was no significant harm to trees and the soft landscaping scheme provided would sufficiently soften, screen and enhance the development. Following the submission of an amended Preliminary Ecological Assessment, ECC Place Services (Ecology) had raised no objections, and the Environment Agency, Natural England and Essex SuDS also had not objected on flood risk and/or drainage grounds.

Members were made aware that the proposal would result in an increase in bulk and floor space to the scheme previously allowed, as well as an increase in hardstanding for car parking, and by its very nature, having regard to the immediate and wider context, would result in a level of harm to the character and appearance of the area, thereby resulting in minor conflict with Adopted Policies SPL3 and PPL3 as well as Paragraph 130 of the NPPF. However, the development did allow for sufficient levels of soft landscaping, particularly to all boundaries, and retained good separation distances between each building, thereby ensuring the development did not appear overdeveloped.

In addition, the proposed development was considered by officers to represent a strong economic boost to the District, with provision for up to 152 jobs, which compared favourably to the extant permission that provided for 36 jobs. The proposal would therefore set a positive and progressive tone for commercial development in the District, which currently had very poor provision of commercial office space, and what provision there was, was generally of very poor quality. In addition, a Sequential Test had been undertaken, which had demonstrated there were no other sequentially preferable sites where the development could instead be located.

Taking all of the above into consideration, Officers considered that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The application is referred to the Planning Committee following the Member referral request of Pier Ward Councillor Paul Honeywood, due to concerns over parking provision and highways impact, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing residents. The application is the subject of a current non-determination appeal, listed to be considered by the Inquiry procedure lasting for 6 days in September 2022.

When the appeal was submitted the jurisdiction of the Council to determine the application was removed. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to obtain Members’ resolution as to whether or not they would have approved the application had they been in a position to determine it. Members should note that an extension of time for the submission of the Council’s Statement of case for the appeal has been agreed until Friday 15 July 2022.

It was reported to Members that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee following the Member referral request of Pier Ward Councillor Paul Honeywood, due to his concerns over parking provision and highways impact, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing residents.

The Committee was informed that this application was the subject of a current non-determination appeal, listed to be considered by the Inquiry procedure lasting for 6 days in September 2022. When the appeal was submitted the jurisdiction of the Council to determine the application was removed. Therefore, the purpose of this report was to obtain Members’ resolution as to whether or not they would have approved the application had they been in a position to determine it. Members noted that an extension of time for the submission of the Council’s Statement of Case for the appeal had been agreed until Friday 15 July 2022.

The Committee heard how the proposal had attracted objections from Essex County Council’s Heritage Section and the Local Highway Authority. The former considered that the proposal would result in harm to the Conservation Area, the latter that there was inadequate parking provision and circulation space on-site. In addition, there would be some limited impact on the living conditions of adjoining neighbours. However, the proposal was considered acceptable in principle by Officers and that there were very considerable benefits to regeneration, and in the re-use of a deteriorating brownfield site for much needed specialist housing delivery. Those were considerations which were afforded strong Local Plan policy support. Furthermore, Officers considered that the public benefits clearly outweighed the less than substantial heritage harm and resultant development plan conflict. Officers further considered that a technical conflict with the Parking SPD would not give rise to unacceptable highway safety impacts, or residual cumulative impacts on the highway network that would be severe. As such, in applying the appropriate local and national planning policy tests, the Officers considered that the appeal should not be defended on highways grounds. All other detailed technical matters including a holding objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority would be capable of being addressed through the use of appropriately worded planning conditions. Overall, officers concluded that the benefits would very clearly outweigh the harms and development plan/Parking SPD conflict.

The proposal had been accompanied by a viability report, attesting that the proposal would be unviable with Local Plan Policy requirements for 30% affordable housing provision. This was to be the subject of an independent appraisal prior to the inquiry, the outcome of which would determine whether or not affordable housing contributions would be provided. Ultimately, if the appeal proceeded, this would be a matter for the Secretary of State appointed Inspector to determine.

Bill Marshall, a resident of the District, spoke for the application.

Councillor Paul Honeywood, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.